Cecil Papers
October-December 1571

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Year published

1883

Pages

531-579

Annotate

Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Cecil Papers: October-December 1571', Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, Volume 1: 1306-1571 (1883), pp. 531-579. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=111995 Date accessed: 02 August 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

October–December 1571

1638. Interrogatories and Answers of Lawrence Banister.
1571, Oct. 1.As to the favourers of the match with the Scottish Queen, the assurances and conveyances of the Duke's lands since the first motion of the marriage, the moneys paid through Grimshaw to the Bishop of Ross, the answers to the letters to Lord Herries from Lowther, &c.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 139–141. In extenso.]
1639. Articles and Examination of Robert Higford.
1571, Oct. 1.Touching his doings in sending and receiving letters to and from the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen of Scots during the Duke's imprisonment: his conferences with Thomas Cobham, Lord Cobham, &c.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 76–80. In extenso.]
1640. Examination of Lord Lumley.
1571, Oct. 1.As to Mr. Knottesworth, wrote about the beginning of September to him in answer to his father-in-law's request for his receiving a young man into service. At the end of the letter he advertised him of the Duke's restraint in his house, but added nothing, nor intermeddled in the Duke's cause. As to the Earl of Worcester, advertised him in like manner.—1 October 1571.
1 p.
1641. The Examinations of Wm, Sharpe, a servant of the Duke of Norfolk, Margaret Hancocks, Mary Caborne, and Ellen Dyer.
1571, Oct. 1.Sharpe confesses receiving from Eliz. Massy, wife of the minister (priest) of the Tower, certain letters for the Duke, a silver cross, &c., and also delivering to her three letters from the Duke. Ellen Dyer, whom he was to marry, sent the cross as a love-token by Caborne, the jailor's maid. On Matt. Godden informing him that Lord Lumley was in the Tower, he told the Duke, who gave him 2s. for Godden, but made no answer, save that he prayed all things might turn to the best.
pp.
1642. Dr. Thomas Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Oct. 1.Has been thoroughly occupied during the day, especially in seeking out the conveyers of letters, and has found out two ways; one, by the minister's wife; the other, by a woman of the Tower Hill practising with the jailor's maid, that the said maid might deliver things to Sharpe. States some particulars to prove these matters. Skipwith has done his part very well, to bring things to light, and has taken from the Duke his bible, wherein are ciphers in three several places. Has spoken with Lord Lumley, and sends his answers to the interrogatories: also the answers of Banister and Higford. Sends the bearer, his servant, beforehand to Lord Burghley with these writings, as he hopes on the morrow to wait on Her Majesty.—The Tower, 1 Oct. 1571.
[Postscript].—On the morrow he will supply, by word of mouth, what he has not written. Desires his commendations to Sir Thomas Smith. Sends Lord Burghley “a report of both the Cuthberts' making and portraitures of their bodies by the declaration of a Scottishman, one Coldewel that doth know them both.”
Seal. 1¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 155, 156. In extenso, except the last postscript.] Enclosure,
Deposition by James Couldwell.
Codberd Red is a young man of the age of 23, black coloured, low of stature, having no beard or very little, black-headed, and is Lord Ross's fifth son, and can speak Latin. John Codberd is of the age of 28, as I judge, pale-faced, low of stature, a thin yellowish beard, a yellowish head, without any hair of his cheek, both steward and secretary to the Bishop of Ross, and one that did all about him.—1 Oct. 1571.
1643. Thomas Cobham to the Privy Council.
1571, Oct. 2.Craves their pardon and favour. Never named the Earl of Westmoreland's or Ridolfi's letters, &c. Will answer further to any articles that may be demanded of him.
1 p. [Murdin, p. 156. In extenso.]
1644. Interrogatories and Answers of John, Lord Lumley, on examination by Sir Walter Mildmay, Thos. Wilson, and Thos. Wilbraham.
1571, Oct. 3.Denies correspondence with the Duke since his trouble touching matters other than private, or in cipher, or being with him alone, or corresponding with the Queen of Scots, or knowing aught of the matter talked of between the Earl of Southampton and the Bishop of Ross at Lambeth Marsh, or conferring with Ridolfi, or with Knotsford, on matters other than his private affairs, or talking with Cuthbert, the Bishop's servant. [See also No. 1762 below.]
4 pp.
1645. Examination of Sir Nicholas Le Strange.
1571, Oct. 4.Never knew of any letters to or from the Duke and the Scottish Queen. As to Las3ells, the Duke merely sent him thanks for offering his services on going down into the country. He showed examinate a ring which he said the Duke knew well. Received it and showed it to the Duke, who acknowledged he knew it well and delivered it again to him. Never came from the Court to London till the Queen came from the Duke's house, &c.
On further examination, says Lassells commended to him greatly the Queen of Scots, and showed him a ring in the Charterhouse at London, saying the Duke knew it. Examinate took it and showed it to the Duke, who, when he saw it said, “I know the ring well,” but gave it back and said, “Thank him, and say to him that I have nothing to do there, and so bid him farewell.” After Ligons went from Kenninghall, he never saw him, nor heard of or from him.
Signed. 1½ pp.
1646. Common Interrogatories touching the matter of the Marriage intended between the Queen of Scots and the Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Oct. 4.With whom and how many have you conferred, who with you, and what times and places, who first moved you to like of the marriage, what letters or messages have you received, &c, &c.?
In Burghley's hand. 1 p.
1647. Interrogatories and Answers of Wm, Barker,
1571, Oct. 10.Touching his conference with Charles Bailly. Does not know John Cuthbert. The Duke's relations with Ridolfi; the money sent into Scotland, &c.; the meaning of the ciphers 30 and 40; the method of taking away the Scottish Queen; the letters from the Pope to the Duke, &c.
14 pp. [Murdin, pp. 108–113. In extenso.]
1648. Answer of Robt. Higford to Sir Francis Knollys, Sir Walter Mildmay, Dr. Wilson, and others.
1571, Oct. 11.As to the effect of the letters of the Queen of Scots to the Duke when in the Tower, and of his answers; also of those written after his release.
7 pp. [Murdin. pp. 81–84. In extenso.]
1649. The Duke of Norfolk to the Earl of Bedford, the Lord Admiral, the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Burghley, and Sir Thos. Smith.
1571, Oct. 11.Beseeching them to make declaration to the Queen of his sorrow and penitence for his offences. Never acted either by plain writing or by cipher to the prejudice of Her Majesty.—From the Tower this 11 October 1571.
1 p. [Murdin, p. 157. In extenso.]
1650. The Tower.
1571, Oct. 11.The names of the householders in the Tower, of the warders, of the persons in the Lieutenant's house, and of the retainers within and about the town.
The number of men in the list of householders is 57, of women, 43; of children, 23. In the Lieutenant's house there are 11 persons composing his household, 31 serving men and 12 retainers.
3 pp.
1651. Interrogatories and Answers of Lawrence Banister.
1571, Oct. 11.Concerning his conferences with the Bishop of Boss, with Ridolfi, Cuthbert, &c, his cipher, letters to .the Duke, &c.
2½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 141–143. In extenso.]
1652. Interrogatories and Answers of Wm. Barker.
1571, Oct. 11.As to the letters in cipher Goodyer carried between the Duke and the Queen of Scots; the two letters from the Pope to the Duke; Cuthbert's proceedings therein; the delivery of letters to Raw, Lord Lumley's man; Ridolfi's journey, &c, &c.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 113–115. In extenso (the Interrogatories being placed after the Answers).]
1653. Wm. Barker's Confession.
1571, Oct. 11.His talks with the Bishop of Ross, as to the delivery of his mistress; Count de Roan's promise to bring two thousand French shot into Scotland: the Bishop's travail for a treaty; the cause why Ridolfi was sent, &c.
2½ pp. [Murdin, p. 116. In extenso.]
1654. Charles Bailly to the Privy Council.
1571, Oct. 12.Presents in writing what he previously opened. The day after he arrived at Brussels, he went to the house of Secretary Courteville, to give him a letter that Sir Frances Englefield had given Bailly for him, and to speak to him about the privilege for the books. While he was waiting, Ridolphi's servant came there. The latter, after both had spoken to Courteville, took Bailly to Ridolphi's lodging. Bailly's interview with Ridolphi, to whom he also went in the evening, as arranged. Ridolphi, the same evening, has an audience of the Duke of Alva. Gives a detailed account of his interviews on the following day with Ridolphi touching certain letters the latter desired his assistance in writing to the Bishop of Ross. The packet of these letters Ridolphi gave to Bailly, to leave with “Monsieur de Gordon, Capitaine de Calais.” [This packet was the one containing the cipher letters marked “30” and “40.”] In case Monsieur de Gordon was delayed in forwarding the packet to England, Ridolphi told Bailly the contents of the letter therein for the Bishop of Ross. [These are, almost verbatim, the same as those contained in Bailly's letter of 5th May 1571 to Lord Burghley. Vide supra No. 1562,] Discord among the Englishmen at Brussels. Desires their Lordships to have compassion on him, and to set him at liberty, assuring them that he will swear never to serve any Scotchman or foreigner, declaring his devotion to the Queen, and representing his destitute condition. “De ma pryson, the Littel ayse, ce vendredy au moys d'octobre, septiesme moys de mon emprysonnement, 1571.”
Endorsed:—12 Oct. 1571.
French. 4 pp.
Translation from the French of the foregoing.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 15–17. In extenso, except one or two unimportant passages.]
1655. Interrogatories and Answers of Henry Goodyear.
1571, Oct. 12.He never dealt in any case concerning the Queen of Scots, nor concerning the Duke of Norfolk, only he saith he hath heard by common bruits that the Queen of Scots hath practised against the Queen's Majesty in stiring up of the last rebellion, and in seeking to marry with the Duke of Norfolk against Her Majesty's will.
The answers are in Burghley's hand. 1½ pp.
1656. Sir Nicholas Lestrange to Sir Thomas Smith.
1571, Oct. 12.Touching his conversation with Lassells, to the same purport as his examination, 4th Ocr. (q. v.). Trusts he shall not long be kept in prison.—Written at “my Lord of London's house” this 12th of October 1571.
1 p.
1657. Interrogatories to be ministered to the Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Oct. 13.These have reference to the proposed treaty between Elizabeth and Mary; to the Duke's intrigues with Ridolphi, &c.
Endorsed:—13 October.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 158, 159. In extenso.]
1658. The Duke of Norfolk's Answers to the foregoing Interrogatories.
1571, Oct. 13The Duke mentions no less than three “devices,” of which he had been informed, for the liberation of the Queen of Scots; one, for conveying her to a castle of Lord Lumley's in Yorkshire, and thence as might be determined; the second, for conveying her to the house of a relative of Powell, the pensioner, or near the house into a barn, and thence to the sea side; and the third, for conveying her, with Sir Henry Percy's aid, by three stages, into Scotland—13 October 1571. [The examination was held before the Earl of Bedford, Sir E. Clynton, Lord Burghley, Sir T. Smith, Sir G. Gerrard, and Thos. Bromley, all of whom countersign it.]
Signed. 5 pp. [Murdin, pp. 159–162. In extenso, except two short passages.]
1659. Interrogatories and Answers of Lawrence Banister.
1571, Oct. 13.Banister's chief answer is with respect to certain draft letters which the Bishop of Ross desired him to show to the Duke of Norfolk, and to pray him to assent to subscribe letters of the same tenor; these were to serve as letters of credit for Ridolphi. He denies having, since his imprisonment, either received any message or letter from tie Duke, or sent any to him.—13 October 1571.
Signed by Banister. 2½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 143, 144. In extenso.]
1660. Declaration of Banister.
1571, Oct. 13.Concerning Goodyear, especially as regards the conveyance of letters, by Goodyear's means, between the Queen of Scots an dthe Duke of Norfolk.—13 October 13 Eliz.
½ p. [Murdin, p. 144. In extenso.]
1661. Interrogatories and Examination of Barker.
1571, Oct. 13.States that he saw at the Bishop of Ross's house, three letters of credit in Latin, for Ridolphi, drawn up by the Bishop in the Duke of Norfolk's name, one to the Duke of Alva, one to the Pope, and the third to King Philip. These letters the Bishop afterwards caused to be put in cipher, and said he would subscribe the Duke's name to them, and that the Duke might deny it when he list.
Barker says he did not write to the Duke since his own imprisonment. Cuthbert told examinate that the letters sent from Ridolphi to the Duke and Lord Lumley, whereon were written Trenta and Quaranta, were in the packet that Lord Cobham had; but more he does not remember. The Bishop of Ross told him that he had measured, or would measure, the window out of which the Queen of Scots should have been conveyed. When he told the Duke of Norfolk what the Bishop of Ross had said concerning the letters of credit, although the Duke seemed not to like well thereof, he did not send to stay the Bishop from doing as he had said.—13 October 1571.
Signed by Barker. 3¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 117, 118. In extenso.]
1662. Henry Goodyear's Examination.
1571, Oct. 13.He never spake with the Queen of Scots in his life, except on the day she removed from Coventry to Tutbury, when by the way she spoke of a spaniel, the weather, the redness of her hand, and “lastly somewhat as the time served of her innocency touching the matters whereof she is commonly charged.”
½ p.
1663. Higford's Examination.
[1571, Oct. 13].Interrogatories to and answers of Higford, concerning the correspondence between the Duke of Norfolk and Goodyear, Liggens, and Higford.
2 pp. [Murdin, pp. 85, 86. In extenso.]
1664. Barker's Answer,
1571, Oct. 14.At Shrovetide, or thereabouts, last past, the Bishop of Ross talked with him, saying there had been devices to convey away the Queen of Scots, but that none had taken place; notwithstanding there were ever well willing friends to take the matter in hand, as at that time, Powell, the pensioner, and two named by Liggens, viz., Owen, Lord Arundel's man, and Raw, Lord Lumley's man. Liggens said he would bring a fourth with him, and so the Bishop said he must get one more, or be that one himself. The device of Liggens was for these men to ride up and down in the country, to feel men's minds, and to seek convenient places; to do this severally, and to meet at certain times and confer. He would have had the Queen of Scots over sea; they would have her into her own country, as the Bishop also desired. This examinate, asked for his opinion, said he could not tell what to say, there being so many attempts to no purpose. Being requested by the Bishop, said he would show the Duke of it, and did so. To his remembrance, the Duke replied, “The Bishop of Boss will never leave practising: I cannot tell what to think of it, nor what so slender a company can do; the two serving-men be trusty enow; what the other is I know not.” This examinate wrote to the Bishop of Ross the Duke's opinion, referring to Powell in his letter, as “the tall gentleman.” A while after, the Bishop sent him word that “the tall gentleman” had been with him, and informed this examinate he had good reason for trusting Powell. Was sent for not long after by the Bishop, and while with him, Owen came to the house. This examinate heard from behind the curtain what was said. Owen told the Bishop the matter would go very well, for they had gotten such a man as was not to be found in a country again, viz., Sir Henry Percy. The Bishop seeming not to credit it, Owen said it was certain, and that Sir Henry Percy would arrange for a meeting with the Bishop, who declared his readiness for the same. After some other talk of the matter, Owen departed. When he was gone, the Bishop spoke to this examinate, who said he did not believe that regarding Sir Henry Percy. The Bishop said he might tell the Duke, which he did, and the Duke also expressed his disbelief of the news. A while after the Bishop sent for this examinate, and told him he had spoken with Sir Henry Percy, and found him willing enough, but not yet resolved, for he stood upon some terms, that if he were “well used” in England, he would not now deal for the Queen of Scots, but remain a friend till time might serve; but if he were not “well used,” he would go through with the matter. By “well used” the Bishop thought he meant getting the Earldom. Shortly after the Bishop sent for him again, and said Powell had been with him, who stated he found Sir Henry earnest now in the matter, because his things in England went not as he looked for. This, after another meeting with Powell, the Bishop told this examinate. Sir Henry did not wish the Duke to know he was a doer in the plot. The Bishop said he would talk with Owen and Powell, which he did, and said they were ready, therefore he would find some occasion to go down to the Queen of Scots, and take view of the window and place for her escape, and be at hand to help forward the practice, and of this he would write to her. So it was agreed that Powell, Owen, and Raw, should severally go down into the country, and appoint certain places for the “receipt” of the Queen of Scots, where fresh horses should be laid for her; and that at a night appointed a certain number of persons should come into the Park, and that she, with one woman, and one man of her chamber, should be let down at the window, and set upon horse, and depart from place to place, till they came to a castle in the North, where Sir Henry Percy should receive her, and carry her to the Borders: there the Bishop should make it known before to Lord Herries and others, that they might be ready to receive her into her own country. Thinks it was the Middle Border that was chosen, because of Sir Henry's credit there: Sir Henry said he would then become her servant. Does not remember whether they meant to take into their company any of the old practisers in this behalf, but thinks they did. The Bishop told this examinate that Sir Henry Percy, “with his wight and sharp men,” would do the feat well enough. Does not remember how they brake off, unless it were that the Queen of Scots was removed from the Lodge to the Castle, “the which removing was most against her stomach, and sought all mean to let it, as she wrote to the Bishop of Ross;” or that the loss of Dumbarton was the cause; or that Sir Henry gave over, or any of the others. Powell, according to the Bishop, began to cast a doubt whether the Duke was sure to have her or no, for he would not take all this pain, and hazard himself for her liberty, if another Prince should enjoy her. Powell always came in the night to the Bishop, and always to that part of his house, which was towards the street, where nobody was, but at appointed times; the Bishop occupying the part towards the water. Ridolphi required to speak with the Duke a second time, because he would take a full credit with him. This examinate told him it was unnecessary, after what the Duke had agreed to. Ridolphi insisted, however, and the Duke consented. States how he introduced him into the Duke's house, both on the first and second occasions. This examinate might have brought to the Duke the letter written to “H.,” but does not certainly remember it, nor how he received it nor whether any of the Scottish Lords were in town at that time, to whom it might be so directed.
Signed. 7 pp. [Murdin, pp. 118–121. In extenso.]
1655. Sir Thomas Smith to Sir Nicholas Lestrange, and the Answer of the latter.
1571, Oct. 14.His answer doth nothing satisfy the Lords of the Council, for it is known that he first moved Lassells to get a token from the Scottish Queen to the Duke of Norfolk whereby he might have credit to go betwixt them. The Duke also said more words when he [Lestrange] brought him the ring. Let him call to remembrance these two points lest the Council conceive more displeasure against him.—London, 14 Oct. 1571.
Lestrange replies at the foot of the foregoing, denying having asked Lassells to obtain a token, he having the ring on his finger when he first saw him. Also denies the Duke had more words with him.—Bishop of Loudon's House, 14 Oct. 1571.
¾ p.
1666. The Bishop of Ross.
1571, Oct. [17].A document signed by Da. Lewes, Valen. Dale, Willm. Drurie, Willm. Aubrey, and Henry Jones, concerning the privileges of the Bishop of Ross, as Ambassador of the Queen of Scots. The answers intimate that the Bishop is liable to punishment for his Intrigues against Elizabeth on behalf of Mary.
Endorsed:—“1[ . ] Octob. 1571. The opinion of the Doctors to the articles.”
pp. [Murdin, p. 18. In extenso.]
1667. Interrogatories for Banister.
[1571, Oct. 17].Regarding two books on behalf of the Queen of Scots, one touching her title to the English Crown, the other “in defence of her honour;” as to whether the Duke of Norfolk, or any of his servants, received the bull of reconciliation to the Pope, or were reconciled according to that bull, and when, how, and where; touching the Duke's conference with Ridolphi, &c.
1 p.
1668. Interrogatories to be ministered to Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir Edward Stanley, Sir Thomas Gerrard, Hall and Rolleston.
1571, Oct. 17.These have reference to various “devices” for the liberation of the Scottish Queen. Subjoined are three additional interrogatories for Rolleston, and one additional for Hall.—17 October 1571.
pp.
1669. Examination of Sir Thos. Stanley.
1571, Oct. 17.With Owen [the Earl of Arundel's servant], lie never had conference. Raw [Lord Lumley's servant], he knows not. Powell came to him in Easter time last to his house in Cannon Row, and told him that the Bishop of Ross would gladly speak with him, and he said more that if he would take upon him to convey the Scottish Queen away, it were a worthy deed for him, or such like word he used. To that this examinate said that his finger was lately in that fire; he would meddle no more with any such matters, nor would he speak with the Bishop. To that Powell answered, “If you will not, as good as you did.” At that same time, the said Powell told this examinate from the Bishop of Ross, that Hall was taken in Dumbarton; and this was the beginning of this whole talk. He knoweth one Holland, half-brother (as he thinketh) to the Earl of Northumberland, but had not spoken with him these seven years. With Sir Henry Percy he never had conference, nor ever thought the said Sir Henry such a man as would meddle for the delivery of the said Scottish Queen. He never knew any more to be privy to any of the said practices or devices, but those named in his first confession, and this Powell so far as he has now declared. Can say no more touching the order of the conveyance of the Scottish Queen, and of the force to be raised, than what he has declared in his first examination. With the Norfolk matters of rebellion he never was acquainted, nor had any talk with any Norfolk man about any such matters. He never heard of anything in Ireland touching rebellion, but that there was a common bruit or speech of Stuckley, that he was come to make some rebellion in the west of Ireland. Examinate looked for no aid out of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, or Staffordshire, nor did he know of any in that country privy to the matter, other than those named in his first examination. He was brought into the matter by Rolleston, Hall, and Sir Thos. Gerrard; and, because he thought then the Scottish Queen to be heir-apparent to the crown, he would be loath to displease her, and therefore was content to entertain that talk of delivery of her; but he never meant to do it indeed. If the matter and enterprise had come to effect, he must needs have gone with her into Scotland; and that was his mind. He did not mean to set upon the enterprise before he had understood the Duke of Norfolk's mind, betwixt whom (he heard say) and the Scottish Queen there was some contract of marriage. But the matter was discovered by Rolleston's son, before they had sent any word to know the Duke's mind, “and so it quailed.” Powell told him at the same time they were together that a man of the Bishop of Ross was taken, who had a packet of letters and certain books with him which he brought from beyond the seas; and that the whole packet was taken, but certain of the letters were taken out of it by rny Lord Cobham, and sent to the Bishop of Ross; and that the French Ambassador and the Bishop of Ross did make new letters in cipher, and so they were sent to the Council for the true packet. And if those letters, said Powell, had been delivered to the Council, which were taken out of the packet, it would have disclosed as great a matter as had been this many a day in England, and would have touched many a man. They sent Hall to my Lord Montagu that he should understand of the Duke of Norfolk how he did like the plot which the Scottish Queen had devised for her delivery. And Hall brought word again from the Lord Montagu that the Duke liked not of it, and would not meddle in that matter. For any thing that he should have part in her, if he had any thing, time should bring it him, and he would tarry for it, but in such matters he would not meddle. And this word Hall brought from my Lord Montagu (whose servant he was), as it was told them (sic). Hall said that Lord Montagu did not like of the manner either. Also before Hall came again to them who sent him (that was, the Lord Dudley, Sir Thos. Gerrard, and this examinate), the matter was discovered at the Court by Rolleston's son, and so all ceased. Who the messenger was between Lord Montagu and the Duke of Norfolk this examinate says he knows not.—17 October 1571.
Signed. 2 pp.
1670. Interrogatories for Lord Lumley.
1571, Oct. 17.Referring chiefly to the plot for Mary's liberation.
Endorsed:—17 Oct. 1571.
pp.
1671. Answer of Lord Lumley.
1571, Oct. 17.Denies that he has in any wise dealt in the matter of the conveying away of the Scottish Queen. Has never heard of any plan for taking her to any castle or house of his in Yorkshire or elsewhere. He never understood that either Hugh Owen or Raw were in any wise privy to any matter concerning the Queen of Scots. Knows Cuthbert (servant to the Bishop of Ross) “by reason of access with his master,” and says he never saw him since his first trouble. Does not know, nor yet has heard, of any conveyance of Cuthbert to any place. Never knew, nor heard, that Cuthbert was in Arundel House since the first trouble of this examinate. Had never dealt with, nor heard of, Ridolphi in any matter for the delivery, aid, or relief of the Queen of Scots, or as touching the Duke of Norfolk. Ridolphi never had any dealings with this examinate in any matter concerning any message or business in the parts beyond the seas. He never knew of any cipher between him and Ridolphi, nor of any cipher for his [Lord Lumley's] name, nor did he receive or hear of any letters sent unto him from Ridolphi. Examinate never had any conference with the Bishop of Ross, directly or indirectly, touching the Queen of Scots or the Duke of Norfolk since his delivery out of his first trouble. Never had conference with Cuthbert, nor with Raw touching Cuthbert, nor with Barker touching the Queen of Scots or Cuthbert. Never received any letters, in cipher or out of cipher, from the Bishop of Ross since his first trouble. He never received any letters from the Scottish Queen. He never heard of any letters directed to any person by the figures of “30” or “40,” nor knows who should be signified thereby. He knows not who should be signified by the letters “H” or “O,” but says that a small “k” was a cipher of the Duke of Norfolk to express the name of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. And further says to his remembrance, his man Raw brought him the characters in paper for the names of divers noblemen and councillors from the Duke of Norfolk, by Barker, the Duke's man. These characters were brought him shortly after his first trouble, and he has since used them in sundry letters to the Duke of Norfolk, and the latter likewise has used the same in sundry letters to this examinate. These letters tended only to the matters of suit for his troubles, and to no other end. He has not seen or heard at any time any of the letters or postscripts of the Scottish Queen since his first trouble. The Bishop of Ross, before the first committing of the Duke of Norfolk at Arundel House, did, by way of question, ask this examinate whether it were not good and necessary that the Tower of London should be taken; at which communication Ligons, the Duke of Norfolk's man, was present, Examinate answered that it was desperate, and not feasible nor fit to be done. This communication was about such time as the Duke of Norfolk was about Wilton, the Earl of Pembroke's house, after which this examinate sent to the Duke by Owen (the Earl of Arundel's man) to declare unto him that matter propounded by the Bishop of Ross. The Duke gave answer that he thought it not feasible nor fit to be dealt in. Examinate had not had any talk in this matter with the Duke since the message sent by Owen.—17 October 1571.
Signed. 2¾ pp.
1672. Answers of Sir Thos. Gerrard, Hall, Banister, Thos. Cobham, and Fr. Rolleston.
1571, Oct. 17.Sir T. Gerrard states that he does not know Owen, or Raw, or Powell, or Holland, or Sir Henry Percy, “of any acquaintance,” nor ever had any conference with any of them about any conveyance of the Scots' Queen. He never knew nor heard of any proclamation to be made, and, if any such were devised, he was not privy to it. His intent was to convey the Scottish Queen away, and enter into the Isle of Man or into Scotland, as the wind had served, and so to have gone himself away with her. He was in debt, and thought anyways to shift for himself. As to the sending of Hall to Lord Montagu, he knows nothing, but remembers well that Hall was sent to the Bishop of Ross, and that Hall, at his coming again, said that Lord Montagu did not like the enterprise, nor did the Bishop of Ross.
Hall states that he knows of no proclamation made, or to be made, for the Scottish Queen, and, if any such were, it was more than his knowledge. Further, that they sent him to the Bishop of Ross and to Lord Montagu, as reported. But he could find no opportunity to speak with Lord Montagu, nor ever spake to him of it [the plot] nor with the Duke of Norfolk, nor with Barker, nor sent any message to the Duke. But when he came back again he told them that Lord Montagu liked not the device, which answer was framed by himself, and not given by Lord Montagu.
Banister states that he never saw any such books as the two alluded to in the first interrogatory, written on behalf of the Scots' Queen, nor knew who made or devised them, nor what counsel was had to the making of them. Being asked about a letter sent from Ric. Lowther to the Duke of Norfolk, dated 14 June 1569, wherein was written of certain news of a rebellion, and that Banister could tell how the same Lowther came by it, he says he never knew anything of it, but by the same Ric. Lowther, which (as he thinks) the said Lowther might write to him about that time, but he never had other information. He never heard anything from the Bishop of Ross as to what certain of those engaged in the plot meant to do for their safety after they had conveyed away the Queen of Scots. Neither the Duke of Norfolk, nor he himself, nor any of the Duke's servants received the bull of reconciliation, so far as he could ever know. He had no intelligence with Ridolphi, nor ever spake with him, nor ever knew that any had, but if any had he thinks it was Barker.
Thomas Cobham says he saw Charles Bailly at Lord Cobham's house at the Blackfriars; he thinks also he spake not with him. Rowland Macklyn went into the chamber with the said Charles, but he and young Thomas stood without.
Francis Rolleston says he knows neither Owen, nor Raw, nor Powell, nor Holland, nor is acquainted with Sir Henry Percy, nor has had conference with any other or more touching the conveyance of the Scottish Queen, but as he has written in his confession and examination upon articles heretofore taken.—17 October 1571.
Signed by Gerrard, Hall, and Banister. 1½ pp.
1673. Interrogatories and Answers of Barker.
1571, Oct. 18.Does not know that the Duke of Norfolk used any other of his servants in the matter between him and Ridolphi, save this examinate. Heard Ridolphi often speak with confidence of Lord Lumley, Lord Arundel, and Lord Montagu, as noblemen who would rise on the landing of the troops from abroad; but of his own knowledge can say nothing. Nor can he tell what friends were accounted of in Ireland to help the King of Spain in his invasion of that country at the same time. The Bishop of Ross told this examinate that Lord Dudley, Rolleston, Sir Thomas Stanley, and Sir Thomas Gerrard, meant to go with the Queen of Scots wheresoever she had gone. He heard from the Bishop that Sir Anthony Browne, late one of the justices, was a principal doer in the making of the two books written on behalf of the Queen of Scots, and that he had the advice of Mr. Plowden and Mr. Harpsfeld who, he thinks, saw and read the books. The Bishop stated he had used the advice of divers in those books, as well learned in the temporal law as in the civil law; mentioning, for the former, Mr. Plowden, and for the latter, Mr. Mowse and Mr. Aubrey. Knows nothing certain about any intended taking of the Tower of London. Harris, the Duke's servant, was not, he thinks, made privy to any matters. Jones often came from Lord Lumley to the Duke, and was well accounted of, but how far he dealt, touching the taking away of the Queen of Scots, this examinate knows not. Henry Cockayne, a bookseller in Fleet Street, used to write sundry letters for the Bishop in the secretarial hand, but not in cipher, and, he thinks, was used by the Bishop in writing of the above-mentioned books.—18 October 1571.
Signed. 3½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 121, 122. In extenso.]
1674. Interrogatories and Answers of Thomas Cobham.
1571, Oct. 18.States that Rowland Meclyn, “gatherer of my Lord Cobham's droits,” brought a “bousret” [budget] from Dover to Lord Cobham's at the Blackfriars. In this were certain books, but he cannot tell that any letters were therein, and says that Lord Cobham said that Meclyn had also brought a packet, of letters, which Lord Cobham said he would deliver to the Lords of the Council, and went to the Court so to do, and more he cannot tell of those letters. This examinate did not know of any letters from the Countess of Northumberland, the Earl of Westmoreland, and Ridolphi, or any of them, being in the packet. He did not know that his wife carried a message to the Duke of Norfolk from Lord Cobham, to cause Cuthbert to be conveyed away or hidden. He heard that Cuthbert was taken, but knows not of whom; nor more can he say thereof. He was not privy to the conveyance of Cuthbert out of the realm, or to any place else, nor ever saw him. He has often written and sent to the Duke of Norfolk, at the latter's first being in the Tower, but never since his last being there: there was nothing of importance in the letters. He never certified the Duke that he heard how the rebels should have taken Berwick, if they had prospered in their journey to Pontefract. Says assuredly he was never with the Bishop of Ross in his life, nor ever spake with him. He did not kneel to make intercession to his brother Lord Cobham to stay the delivery of the packet of letters. He remembers saying to his Lordship that the books taken might hinder the Duke, but did not say that the Duke should be undone by showing of the letters, or any such thing.—18 October 1571.
Signed by Cobham, and also by Dr. Thos. Wilson, Nicholas Barham, and Thomas Wilbraham. The Interrogatories are chiefly in Burghley's handwriting. 3 pp.
1675. The Duke of Norfolk's Imprisonment.
1571, Oct. 18.Document headed, “Extraict d'une lettre d'un gentilhome Angloys a un sien amy touchant les causes pour lesquelles le Due de Norfolk a esté derechef constitué prisonnier et quelques aultres avecques luy en la tour de Londres, en datte du xviijme jour d'Octobre 1571.”
After a violent attack on Mary Queen of Scots, the writer makes mention of the Duke's first imprisonment; his submission and liberation; the violation of his promises; the intended seizure of London by the conspirators; Ridolphi's mission; the Pope's approval of the intrigues; the intended attack on Ireland; the books written on behalf of Mary's title to the English crown; the intended proclamation of Mary; the design of the conspirators to get James I. from Scotland and to send him into Spain; the declaration of these intrigues to the municipal authorities and citizens of London by the Privy Council, &c.
French. 7 pp.
1676. Interrogatories for Banister and Higford.
1571, Oct. 18.(1.) Interrogatory to Banister about the plot for the taking of the Tower of London. Banister, in his reply, denies all knowledge of the same.
Endorsed:—18 Oct. 1571.
½ p. [Murdin, p. 145. In extenso.]
(2.) The ?ame Interrogatory to Higford, who likewise denies all knowledge of the matter.
Endorsed:—18 Oct. 1571.
½ p. [Murdin, p. 86. In extenso.]
1677. Interrogatories and Answers of Lord Lumley.
1571, Oct. 18.To interrogatories 1–7 he can say no more than he said before the Lords the previous day. To the 8th, he says more, (which now he calls to remembrance) that since Midsummer term last Raw told him that, at the request of one in the Charterhouse, (who, as he now calls to remembrance, was Barker,) he, the said Raw, had conveyed the said Cuthbert to a place twenty miles from London, but what place he told him not, nor did this examinate ask him, but rebuked him for meddling in those causes, for that he had forewarned him sundry times after his (Lord Lumley's) first trouble. To interrogatories 9–13 he says as on the previous day. To the 14th, likewise; his conference with the Bishop of Ross before his first trouble appears by his examinations taken heretofore. To the 15th he says as on the previous day, and as he has now added to the 8th interrogatory. To the 16th he can say no more than before the Lords. To the 17th he says as on the previous day. And for the time before his last trouble he confesses he has received [letters] from the Bishop of Ross, but not in cipher; what the effect of them was he does not now remember, but as he thinks they appear in his first examination. To the 18th he says he received letters from the Scottish Queen before his last trouble, but none since, and he remembers they were not abcve two. The effect of them was only commendations and acknowledgments of goodwill, as he supposes she did to divers other lords. To the 19th and 20th, he says as on the previous day, and more he cannot say. To the 21st, he says as on the day before, saving as he has said in reply to the above 18th interrogatory. To the 22nd, he says as on the day before, and further calls to remembrance that, after the Duke came to the Charterhouse, this examinate went to him, and then among other things remembered unto him the message he sent him by Owen, to know what he thought thereof, who said that he thought it not meet, and that Lord Pembroke and Sir Nicholas Throgmorton were of that mind also; and more he remembers not. Being asked whether there was any device, practice, or other plot made, how the Tower should be taken, he says he never heard or knew of any, nor was privy to any. To the 23rd, he neither knows, nor ever was made privy to, any devices or practices touching any port or place for the landing of any strangers or foreigners within this realm or in the realm of Ireland. To the 24th, he neither read nor has had any of the books mentioned therein, nor does he know who was the writer or setter forth thereof, or of any part thereof. To the 25th, he never has been with the Spanish Ambassador, nor has had any conference with him since his first trouble, but before that he had been with him. And such conference and talk as he had with him then is contained in his first examination, to which he refers.—18 October 1571.
Signed by Lord Lumley, and also by Thomas Sekford and G. Gerrard, the examiners. 2¾ pp.
1678. Confession of Edmund Powell.
1571, Oct. 18.“First, I do confess that in Lent last Sir Harry Percy and I meeting together at Tower Hill by chance at my Lord of Arundel's in the morning, they two going away to dinner to Gray's Inn, he and I went to Mistress Arundel's, at what time he told me that the cause of his going to my Lord of Arundel's was to have his opinion and advice touching his brother's land, how he should frame his suit to the Queen, and put in his bill in the Parliament for it; the answer, as I remember, he told me not, but said it was so slight as he made no account of it, and seemed to mislike of my Lord of Arundel for regarding him so little, and that day we had no other talk of any matter of importance. Within a day or two after we met again, as I remember, at Skynnar's in Westminster, where in renewing again the former talk, he told me he had been a suitor to the Queen's Majesty for his brother, and for himself too, as I think; and what answer he had at her Majesty's hand, as I remember he told it me, and that he talked with her Majesty a great while in the matter, but what it was I have utterly forgotten. After that we fell in talk of the Scottish Queen, but not of any purpose, and he asked me if ever I had talked with the Bishop of Ross, and I answered no. He said he was desirous to talk with him, but he was loth to go himself, and messenger he could not tell whom to trust. I told him if he had anything to him he were best go himself; he might as safely as anybody else; and indeed I was loth to go then, or to debate any such matter with Sir Harry Percy, nor then I had not (sic) been with the Bishop. The next time we met, which was within a day or two again, he told me he had been with the Bishop of Eoss and talked with him, and then, as I think, we fell in communications of the Scottish Queen again, and he told me it was an easy matter to convey her away if need were. I told him I thought no, and asked how, and he said divers ways, if she could be delivered unto him a mile or two out of the castle, and, as I remember, spake of the hills that run along towards Scotland, or to bring her through Yorkshire to some place of the sea side, and I told him I thought it was so far off as that it was impossible, and that, if need were, Humber were nearer. This talk I told Mr. Owen, my Lord of Arundel's man, who told me that he would tell the Duke of it, and that he would tell likewise the Bishop of Ross of the matter, to see what he would say to it. And he told me after that, he had told the Duke of the matter, who seemed much to mistrust Sir Harry Percy's dealing in the matter, but could fain be content, as it seemed by Owen's report that she were gone, and that I should have gone with her. Afterward Owen and I went to the Bishop of Ross, with whom, among other talk, we talked of the Scottish Queen, and we told him what Sir Harry Percy had said, how he could, if need were, if she were delivered him, convey her away, and the Bishop, who was very glad of it, answered that he would understand of the Queen, whether she could or no, and then he told us of Sir Thomas Stanley, how willing he was to have done the like, and bade me ask him the question. I told him I would because I was well acquainted with him. Afterward Sir Harry Percy and I talked again of the matter, and I told him, if any such matter were meant Sir Thomas Stanley was a meeter man than he. Whereunto he said, it was very true, because she might have been conveyed to Liverpool, which was nearer. And then Sir Harry Percy and I concluded to talk no more of the matter, both because the time of the year, as he thought, grew on to be unfit, as short nights, and the matter waxed cold also with the Duke and the Bishop of Ross, for they said they thought she was so looked unto she could not scape, and thereupon we never talked more of the matter.”
Headed, in Lord Burghley's hand:—“This was written by Edmund Powell upon a charge given by the Earls of Bedford and Leicester and the Lord Burleigh. 18 Oct. 1571.”
2 pp.
1679. Edmund Powell.
1571, Oct. 19.Interrogatories in Lord Burghley's handwriting endorsed “Interrogatories ministered to Edmund Powell by my Lord of Burgley,” touching Sir Henry Percy.
Endorsed:—“19 Oct. 1571.”
1 p.
1680. Examination of Edmund Powell.
1571, Oct. 19.The first time ho spoke with Sir H Percy in the previous Lent was on the same day that the readers' dinner was at Gray's Inn, and then they walked along through London to Arundel's to dinner, from the Tower Hill, and then they had no talk of any such matter. The Earl of Arundel, Lord Lumley, and Mr. Controller, were at the dinner at Gray's Inn. The first time that ever this examinate spake with the Bishop of Ross, Owen brought him to the Bishop; he remembers not the day, nor the week, but he thinks about a fortnight before the previous Easter. They never spake with the Bishop but twice, and this examinate thinks it was about a se'nnight between, the first time in a chamber of the water-side, the second time in a lower place nearer the street. Examinate does not remember that ever Sir Harry Percy told him the talk he had with the Bishop of Ross; the place, as far as he recollects,. Sir Harry said, was not in his own house, but in another house he appointed, where, this examinate knew not, but he thinks it was about Bishopsgate or Aldgate. When he talked with Sir Harry Percy of the conveying away of the Scottish Queen, the latter said, if he should go about it, he had good geldings and fit men, and named two, for he said he would not have above two or three to such an enterprise. The names were Holland and Withrington, who both had been men of his brother, the Earl of Northumberland. Examinate told Owen, he thinks the next day after, that Sir H. Percy and he had had such talk, and, as he remembers, it was in Arundel House, about four or five days after they walked to Mistress Arundel's to dinner, and in that meantime Sir H. Percy had spoken with the Bishop of Ross, for they had no talk of the Scottish Queen till after he had been with the said Bishop, not touching how she might be conveyed away. “Owen and I went first to [the] Bishop of Ross, I think the same night or the next after we talked of the matter, about vij. of the clock at night, and then among other things we talked of the Scottish Queen. I asked him if Sir Harry Percy had been with him. He made the matter strange at the first, but after confessed it, and then I told him what talk Sir Harry Percy and I had of her, and how he said he thought, if need were, she might be conveyed away, if she could be delivered a mile or two out of the house. The Bishop was glad of it, and said he thought Sir Harry Percy the fittest man in England for it, and that he would send to know whether she could convey herself away or no; and as I remember the second time he told us of Sir Thomas Stanley, how that he was willing once to have done the like. He bade me ask him the question if I were acquainted with him, and whether he would do it then or no, if need were; and I told him I would ask him. There was no man privy to our talk, but ourselves, for Sir Harry Percy and I ever talked alone; Owen never spake with him; Owen and I ever talked alone, saving when we went to the Bishop of Ross's together, for then he was by, and it was only his device and procuring of me to go thither, for before that time I made no reckoning of the talk had with Sir Harry Percy, but as of a discourse, till Owen would needs have me go with him and tell the Bishop of it. I talked with Sir Thomas Stanley after the second time I had been with the Bishop of Ross. It was in his own chamber at Cannon Row. Sir Edward Stanley was by in the chamber, but heard no part of our talk. There was none else present with me, nor heard anything. I told him how I had talked with the Bishop of Ross, and that he desired me to ask him if he would do it, or no, then, if need were. I told him also, as I remember, that Owen had broken the matter to the Duke, and that the Duke liked well of it, and could have been content it had been done, and that Sir Harry Percy and I had had talk how such a matter might have been done, and that the Duke seemed not to like of Sir Harry Percy. He told me that it was true that such a matter was once moved him by old Rolleston and Hall from the Scottish Queen, and how then they had done something in it, if he had not stayed it, for that he liked not of the manner, for he told me, I remember, the words they would have used, a preposterous way, and said that he would not deal in it any more, for that he liked not of it, and thought it not possible to be done; so that there was no intention in it, nor any plot in the world, agreed upon, that ever I knew how it should be done, with him or anybody else. The cause it was no further talked upon between Sir Harry Percy and me were (sic) this. The time of the year he said then was nought, if we had agreed upon any matter; beside, the Duke told Owen, that he thought the Scottish Queen was so straightly looked unto, and double guarded, that she could not 'scape. And withal I was loath to commune any more with Sir Harry Percy of any such matters, because I perceived by Owen the Duke had no very good opinion of him, saying he went about to abuse me.” Exanimate never had other talk with Raw of the Scottish Queen than that he told him Sir Harry Percy and he communed of such matters. Raw told him he mistrusted Sir H Percy, and said that, if need were, and the Scottish Queen were delivered him, he could convey her away into Scotland by a park in Yorkshire that he knew. Examinate remembers not whether he said there was a castle there, or that it was Lord Lumley's, or the name, for he made no account in the world of it. He does not remember; that Sir Thos. Stanley and lie talked of certain letters brought over by Charles, the Bishop of Ross's servant, nor did he ever see or know the said Charles, or hear speak of his name. “But if I did tell Sir Thomas Stanley, as it may be it was, that Owen, as I think, told me he heard say” one of the Bishop's men was taken with letters from beyond sea, and that all were not-found, but by means of Lord Cobham one packet was kept, and what was done with them, or became of them, examinate knows not, nor ever heard more. Perchance Owen can tell more; for examinate never talked more of that matter, and as he remembers, it was about, or a little after, Easter, Owen told him of it. He thinks Owen heard it of the Bishop of Ross. His only fault has been giving ear to such talk and being “trained” on by others.
Headed by Burghley:—“19 October, 1571—Answers to Interrogatories gathered out of the former Confession.”
Signed. 4 pp.
1681. Bryan and Hersey Lassells.
1571, Oct. 19.Interrogatories to Bryan Lassells and Hersey Lassells, his brother.—19 Oct. 1571.
pp.
1682. Examination of Bryan Lassells.
1571, Oct. 19.He never wrote or sent any message from himself to the Scottish Queen, nor yet ever saw her but once, which was at Tutbury, about Easter was 12 months. He never offered any service or pleasure to her, or made any means either to take him or his brother into service of the said Scottish Queen at any [time] present or to come (sic). He utterly denies that he at any time offered to receive the sacrament for her service, or for performing cf any promise made to her. This examinate says that in Easter term was 12 months, he was at Hampton Court, and there by suit obtained a message to be done from the Queen's Highness by one of the Masters of Requests to my Lord Keeper of the Great Seal for the ending of a matter depending at the Common Law between this examinate and one Burton, but he could not prevail therein, and shortly after he went into the country, having business with Lord Shrewsbury, where finding his brother Hersey Lassells then being at Tutbury, he showed unto him that he was like to [be] undone for want of friends, through the suit between him and Burton, and then his said brother offered him to obtain a token from the Scottish Queen to the Duke in this examinate's favour, which, after he delivered to this examinate, viz., a ring with an agate set in it, to be delivered to Sir Nicholas Strange to be delivered to the Duke, with commendations to him, and that she was glad to hear of his speedy delivery, and that she rested his at commandment, praying to hear shortly from him by letters; which ring, with the message aforesaid, this examinate delivered to the said Sir Nicholas at Hampton Court, about Trinity term, to deliver to the said Duke, and this examinate being required by the said Sir Nicholas to come to him for answer before his departure into the country, repaired about a fortnight after to the Charterhouse, and there received the said ring to be re-delivered to the Scottish Queen, with commendations, and she should shortly hear from the Duke; which ring this examinate after delivered to his said brother Hersey at his house in Nottinghamshire, for that he was then out of the Earl's service, for a fray by him made. This examinate denies any acquaintance whatever with any devices to take away the Scottish Queen, or to stir up any rebellion in the realm, or to bring any strangers or foreigners therein, nor has he had any knowledge of the sending by any persons of any letters, tokens, or messages, to the Scottish Queen.
Headed:—“The examination of Bryan Lassells, taken at the Tower, before us, Thomas Sekford, and G. Gerrard, Attorney-General, the sixth of October Ao 1571.” 1 p.
1683. Examination of Hersey Lassells.
1571, Oct. 19.States that the Scottish Queen, sometimes by her servant Beton, and sometimes by herself, offered “brefytes” to him, so that he would be willing to do any pleasure or service to serve her turn, and this examinate promised he would so do, and whatsoever he knew, he says that he made Lady Shrewsbury privy thereto, who always willed him to promise anything, but in no wise to do it, but always to make her privy thereunto. He of himself never made any offer or means to serve the Scottish Queen, but Beton offered him that, if he would serve her, when she was at liberty, he would find her a good mistress; and this examinate told Beton he would serve her when she was at liberty, but he meant not so to do, because he had a patent of xx marks by year from Lord Shrewsbury. He never offered to receive the sacrament to perform any promise made to the Scottish Queen, or to any of her folk. He never brought, or knew of, any letters, tokens, or messages, sent from the Duke to the Scottish Queen, or from the said Queen to the Duke, except one ring, which this examinate procured for his brother Brian Lassells, to be sent to the said Duke from the said Scottish Queen, to the intent he should be a means to the Master of the Rolls in the cause of his said brother against one Burton. Repeats some facts stated by his brother about the ring, and adds that it was obtained through Beton. And further, that about six or eight weeks next after, his brother returned from London either to Tutbury or Chatsworth, with the said ring, declaring that the Duke had seen it, and knew it also, and delivered the same to this examinate, saying it had done him no good, because the matter was otherwise ended. This ring Beton received at this examinate's hands, to be re-delivered to the said Queen. To his remembrance, his brother was with him only twice at any place where the Scottish Queen lay, viz., at Tutbury. He never was privy to any practice or device for conveying away the Scottish Queen, nor knows of any other who was. He never made any special offer or promise to convey her away, but generally he offered to do her what service he could, because he would always make Lady Shrewsbury privy to anything he could learn or know; but he says that the Scottish Queen would ask him if she should not have his aid to be conveyed away, if occasion should serve; and thereto this examinate promised as afore to do all the pleasure he could, for so Lady Shrewsbury appointed him, to the intent to give her intelligence of all things. He utterly denies any knowledge of any practices or devices for stirring of any rebellion within the realm, or for bringing any strangers or foreigners into it, nor has he had any knowledge of the sending by any persons of any letters, tokens, or messages, to the Scottish Queen.
Headed:—“The examination of Hersey Lassells, taken at the Tower, the xixth of October 1571.”
Signed. 3 pp.
1684. Fragment of Edmund Powell's Confession.
1571, Oct. 19.Asked Sir Thos. Stanley whether ever he had dealt in such matter, who answered “Yea,” and told how old Roston broke the matter to him. Remembers not telling the Bishop of Boss of Sir Harry Percy. One Rawe told him not to trust Sir Harry, for if she [Mary] were delivered to him he could convey her away into Scotland as well as he [Sir Harry]. Sir Harry Percy willed him by no means to let either the Earl of Arundel or Lord Lumley know of their talk together.
1 p.
1685. Examination of Robert Harris.
1571, Oct. 19.He was never privy to anything that passed between the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen of Scots. Hath many times said to Barker that he much lamented that ever she came into England. Never knew of any apparel provided for her. nor had any in his house by the Duke's appointment for any person.
1 p.
1686. Examination of Wm. Dix.
1571, Oct. 19.Bolles can tell who had the key of the evidence house at Howard House after the Duke was last sent to the Tower. If found in his chest he thinketh he gave them to his man, Erasmus Dynne, now at the Charterhouse, or to Cantrell, but doth not remember. Never took writings or letters from the said evidence house, nor knew of any who did. Sent two letters to the Duke in the Tower.
1 p.
1687. Interrogatories and Answers of the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Oct 24.Has never been with the Duke in Howard House since the Duke was delivered out of the Tower to the custody of Sir Henry Nevill, yet he doubteth he was once there, but cannot certainly say. Never had conference with the Duke about Ridolfi, nor moved him for any letters brought or sent by him from the Scottish Queen to the Duke. Hath had conference with Barker, but only of matters of learning, never of Ridolfi. Was never privy of instructions given to Ridolfi in French to procure any foreign power to come into England or Ireland. Never conferred with any noblemen of England to make rebellion.
The Queen of Scots wrote to him that Leonard Dacres and the Earl of Northumberland should have conveyed her away, but he dissuaded her from it. Powell he knoweth not, Owen he knoweth. Never knew of any letters sent to the Queen beginning Dilecte fili, salutem. Never moved the Duke to write to the Pope, or to the Duke of Alva, or the Spanish King. Does not know the meaning of the ciphers 30 and 40; By O was meant Sir Nich. Throgmorton, by H the Earl of Westmoreland, but he never wrote to them. A packet of letters was delivered to him, which he opened in the presence of Lord Cobham. There were letters therein for the Earl and Countess of Westmoreland and Greary, and some entitled 30 and 40 from Ridolfi which he sent to the Duke by Barker. As for taking of the Tower of London he never moved any man to it.
6 pp.
1688. Burghley's Interrogatories for the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Oct. 25.Similar to those of the previous day.
Endorsed:—“Extradt out of the Bp. of Ross examination.”
pp.
1689. Interrogatories and Answers of the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Oct. 26.Gives various particulars about his communications with Owen, Powell, Sir Henry Percy, Hall, &c., in the matter of the conveying away of the Queen of Scots; the plot for the taking of the Tower of London; the packet of letters from beyond sea for divers noblemen; Ridolphi's mission abroad on behalf of Mary; the answers to the Articles of Treaty between Elizabeth and Mary; the pecuniary assistance from the Duke of Norfolk, and from abroad; his employment of Francis Barty and Thos. Cobham; the makers, authors, or counsellors of the books on behalf of Mary's title to the English Crown, or in defence of her honour; the rebellion under the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland; his conference with the Earl of Southampton, &c.—Friday, 26 October 1571.
Signed, 15¼ pp. [Murdin, pp. 19–32. In extenso.]
1690. Interrogatories and Answers of Edmund Powell.
1571, Oct. 26.The Bishop of Boss never declared or opened unto this examinate of the Scottish Queen's agreement or consent to be conveyed from the place of her guard and custody, but he perceived by the Bishop of Boss that she was desirous to be delivered from the place where she was kept, but he doubted whether it was easy or possible. The Bishop of Ross took Sir Henry Percy to be the meet man to convey away the said Scottish Queen, and the said Sir Henry had been with him, and talked with him, but in what matter he does not know. This examinate never spake nor dealt in the matter of conveying away the Scottish Queen before Lent last past, so he knows nothing as to whether it was agreed upon to do, it at the beginning [of], or near about, the rebellion in the north parts. He never heard, nor was acquainted with, any proclamation to be made, in her name, immediately upon her escape. Nor did he ever hear from the Bishop of Ross or Owen of any foreign aid to have been determined to be brought into this realm. He does not know of any letters, either sent out of this realm to any person beyond the seas, or from any beyond the seas to any person resiant here, touching the Scottish Queen. Sir Henry Percy never declared to this examinate the cause and occasion why he was desirous to speak with the Bishop of Ross, nor any matter talked of between them. This examinate told Sir Thos. Stanley that he heard say of diverse letters taken, which were sent over the seas into England, and brought in by the Bishop of Ross's man, which, if they had come to light, would have touched some persons, and were of great importance, and that Owen so declared to this examinate, and of his report he said something to Sir Thos. Stanley, and Owen said and named unto him the Lord Cobham, to his remembrance, and that one of the said letters was kept back from the sight and understanding of the Council. The answer which Owen brought to this examinate from the Duke was, that the Duke did seem to like well of the conveying of the Scottish Queen away, but seemed not to trust Sir H. Percy, nor thought the matter possible to be brought about. Owen never named nor spake to this examinate of any other lords but the said Duke.
Headed:—“The examination and confession of Edmund Powell, gent., pensioner, taken at the Tower, the xxvj. of October 1571, before us, Thomas Sekford, and Tho. Wilson, Master of the Requests.”
Signed. 3 pp.
1691. Declaration of Brian Lassells.
[1571, Oct. 26].I did deliver to Sir Nicholas Strange a ring, as I do take it a “naggott” [an agate], with these commands from the Scottish Queen: that she had her commended to the Duke and had sent him a token which he knew very well, and she was very glad to hear of the hope of his delivery; that she rested wholly his and required him to write unto her. The occasion it was delivered to me was this:—Having a suit with one Borton, it went against me, and then I was willed to get a bill to the Queen, which I did, who commanded the Master of the Requests to go to the Lord Keeper with the bill, who utterly denied to do but by bill and answer, without the Queen would send him an injunction. I then laboured with Lord Leicester to see if he could make amend of it, and so went into the country. And having occasion to go to Lord Shrewsbury, ray brother bringing me on the way afoot, complained himself for want of money, and then I told him that my great suit was clearly lost for want of friends. Whereunto he answered, and asked me if the Duke might not stand me in stead, and I told him, “Yes, sure he might do me great pleasure with the Master of the Revels and others.” “Well, I will get you the Scottish Queen's token, and I warrant you for the carriage thereof, he will do what he can for you.” “Doubt you not,” said I, “that it will do me hurt otherwise, for I do not like to deal by her means.” Yet I agreed to the carriage thereof to Sir Nicolas Strange. So I told him my time of going to London, and he promised to come to me at Gattford to my house, and to bring it with him; which he did, and delivered the ring and commands before rehearsed. So he returned to Tutbury, and I to London, when I repaired to Lord Leicester, and got him to make an end of my suit, which he promised, if Borton and I would agree to let him and Mr. Heneage have the hearing thereof.
So, by the space of a fortnight and more I had the ring in my purse, and was determined to have carried it back without delivery, but meeting Sir Nicolas Strange at Hampton Court, I told him of my suit, and, saith he, “I tell you, Mr. Lasselles, suits be slow here,” and then I asked him how they did with the Duke, and either he told me that the Duke was at liberty, that they carried and recarried to him, or else he was at his house; the one I am sure. Then I told him I had a token for the Duke from the Scottish Queen if he durst deliver it. “Yes, marry, we may deliver what we list,”—and thereupon I took it from my purse and held it of my finger, and said, “This is it.” “Well,” saith he, “I will deliver it, and I will speak with you alter.” And he prayed me to let him understand of my going down, which was more than a fortnight after the delivery. And the same morning I came forth of the town, I went to him at the Charter-house, where he delivered me the same ring again with thanks and commands, and that she should shortly hear from him. At my home coming, I understood that my brother was gone from my Lord and lay with my brother Mollneux, who came to my house and asked whether the Queen's token did me any pleasure or no; and I told him, no, but I had brought it down with the above commands, and willed him to let her understand that he did well and the noise was that he should be very shortly at liberty. And so I persuaded them that he should never meddle with her in any case any more, which he promised me he would do. And before, at Easter, I was at Twedbury [Tutbury], when I perceived that the Scottish Queen did give him fair speech, I willed him for the honour of God to take heed how he dealt with her, for she was full of practices, and if he should yield to her, he might undo my Lord and himself and all his friends, which he swore to me he would not, for, saith he, I will feed her with such fair speech as she doth me. But yet I left it not so with him, but persuaded him, forasmuch as Lady Shrewsbury was his very good lady, to make her privy what speech the Queen would use to him at any time, which he did, as she can best testify; whereupon, as he told me after, that my Lady willed him, if she fell a-practising, that he would make her privy to it, and he swore unto her that he would do it without doubt. Undated.
4 pp.
1692. Examination of Brian Lassells.
1571, Oct. 26.“In Lent last past was twelvemonth” was the first time this examinate repaired to Lord Shrewsbury, then being at Tutbury, and the second time was about Whitsuntide then next following, and oftener he was not with him for the said time of two years last past. The cause of his first repair to Lord Shrewsbury was upon letters sent unto him from the said Lord, on the complaint of certain gentlemen and others of the country, and to answer the said matters of complaint. The cause of his repair the second time was that this examinate being complained “upon” to the Lords of the Council for the self-same cause by the persons aforesaid, the said Lords directed letters to the said Earl, which this examinate received and carried down for the examination of the said matters of complaint; these letters he delivered to the Earl at Tutbury. At his first meeting at Tutbury this exarninate understood that the Scottish Queen did first credit and favour his brother, according only to his brother's report, who told this exarninate that he wished the Scottish Queen to do well, for that he thought she would live well, and, if she were at liberty and able to do good, she promised and pretended great friendship towards him. He delivered the ring back again to his brother, Hersey Lassells, at his house at Garford, and not elsewhere.
Endorsed:—“xxvj Octobr. The last examination of Brian Lassells.”
Headed:—“The examination and confession of Brian Lassells, taken at the Tower of London the xxvjth of October 1571.”
Signed. 1 p.
1693. Interrogatories and Answers of Richard Smith.
1571, Oct. 27Referring to Smith's going to Stuckley; his servicei to him; the letters of Sir Francis Englefield out of Flanders; Stuckley's demands of the Spanish King, &c.
Endorsed by Lord Burghley:—“Richard Smythe's confession in the Tower.—27 Octob. 1571.”
2 pp. [Murdin, pp. 183, 184. In extenso.]
1694. Interrogatories and Answers of Sir Henry Percy.
1571, Oct. 27.His first talking with Powell was in Lent last, in the Parliament time, at Mr. Skinner's house, about supper time, in examinate's chamber. It was told that one Hall was taken in Dumbarton, and that lie had confessed that the Queen of Scots should have been conveyed away by Sir Thos. Stanley, Sir Thos. Gerrard, and others, through Lancashire. Hereupon Powell asked examinate whether it were possible that she might be conveyed away, and he said he thought she might. For if she might be delivered in the night time to any one, who had six or seven tall men, they might easily carry her through Lancashire to the port which he said was there, viz., Liverpool, for the distance was not far. And he said there were certain men of the Earl of Northumberland's, whom, if exarninate would bid them do it, he thought would do it, and named Holland and Slingsby, and no more. Powell liked it well. This communication Powell had with him once or twice more afterward, and said he thought Sir Thos. Stanley would convey her away, and would ask the question of him. So it appears he did, for he came afterward to exarninate and said that Sir Thos. Stanley would not meddle in the matter. Exarninate said also he would not meddle in it himself, and so that matter betwixt Powell and him ended. But before it brake off the Bishop of Ross sent a man of his (whose name he knoweth not, but he thinks it was Carr), requiring to speak with him, for he said he had hope that his mistress's matter should have a good end, and he knew that examinate was a suitor for his brother, and he would do the best for him that he could. Exarninate upon this came to the Bishop, who again said the same thing of his brother, and that exarninate was a man able to do his mistress some pleasure, and therefore he would be glad to do the best for him that he could. Then examinate said he had been a suitor to the Earl Mortou for his brother, and the Earl promised him, but after he said he durst not move it to the Queen's Majesty, lest her Highness should demand to have him delivered, and therefore prayed the Bishop to help the best he could. The Bishop then required exarninate to do the Queen, his mistress, some service, that was to help to convey her away, and asked him whether it might be done or no. Examinate said he thought it might be done in that manner as he told Powell, that is, by six or seven tall men on horseback in, the night, but of the ports whither she might be carried, he said he could say nothing, for he knew them not. And as for himself he would be no doer in anything to offend the Queen's Majesty. To carry her northward and.straight into Scotland the Bishop thought a long way, and not possible to be done.—28 October 1571.
Signed. 2¼ pp.
1695. Interrogatories and Examinations of Barker and Banister.
1571, Oct. 30–31.With reference to the letters of credit for Ridolphi when he was sent abroad by the Queen of Scots.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 122, 123. In extenso.]
1696. Interrogatories and Answers of the. Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Oct. 31.Eidolphi asked him how he stood with the Scottish Queen, and what he might affirm therein to the Duke of Alva. This examinate answered that he would not deal with any foreign prince or subject in that behalf, either by writing or by message. Ridolphi showed him no paper of instructions or articles, nor did he see any instructions other than those which Barker delivered to him, and which he returnec before Eidolphi came to him. Ridolphi never proponed to this examinate any question touching any number of men or their landing, nor ever moved him to break any such matter with his friends. Was moved by Barker or Banister from the Bishop of Eoss to write letters of credit for Ridolphi, but he always utterly refused. He also refused to write to the Spanish Ambassador for Ridolphi, when moved to do so by Barker, who told him that he, Eidolphi, and the Bishop had been with the Spanish Ambassador to declare this examinate's approval of the mission of Ridolphi, and that Ridolphi was satisfied. Barker brought him a letter deciphered, which was shown to this examinate when he was before the Lords Commissioners. Does not know that “H” was ever used as a cipher for himself or any other, except for the Earl of Westmoreland, as stated in his former examinations, nor did he ever see “H” on any other letter. Borthwick had money of this examinate several times, how much he remembers not. Borthwick reported to him that the Queen of Scots was in debt to the Bishop, and that his land was in mortgage to a London merchant, and stood upon forfeiture. Whereupon this examinate delivered to Borthwick by Liggens 300l. for its redemption, and this was before the receipt of the 2,000l. of the Queen of Scots' money. Barker told him of conference between the Bishop and Sir Henry Percy about the taking away of the Queen of Scots, but this examinate did not say he thought Sir Henry the fittest man for that purpose, nor did he allow of that matter. Does not remember any message for making up 1,400 crowns to 2,000 crowns. Never heard of any device for conveying the Queen of Scots to Arundel Castle. Does not remember what the conference was between him and the Bishop before the going down to Chatsworth, but thinks it might have been of such causes as were like to be entreated of between the Queen's Majesty and the Queen of Scots. This examinate sent Hawes with no other message than is expressed in his declaration to the Lords of the Council in his first trouble. Morgan was “a great intelligence” to the Bishop, as Barker said to this examinate, but he does not know, nor remembers to have heard, of Morgan's dealings in matters of the State. Thomas Cobham wrote, in one of his tickets to this examinate, that he had intelligence from Lewys de Pase of matters from the Spanish Ambassador, which this examinate never knew nor heard to be of any moment.
Signed. 6¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 162, 163. The answers of the Duke are printed in extenso, but not the interrogatories.]
1697. Interrogatories and Answers of the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Oct. 31.Says he saw the letter 40 sent to the Duke from Ridolphi, but then it was in cipher, wherefore it was sent to Cuthbert, who was then with the French Ambassador, and Cuthbert sent it to this examinate by parcels, as it was deciphered. Its effect was, that Ridolphi had good audience with the Duke of Alva, who referred him first to Courteville, to whom Ridolphi disclosed the whole matter, and then Courteville reported it to the Duke of Alva, and that then he had good audience again of the Duke, who willed him to comfort the Queen of Scots and the Duke of Norfolk by his letters, and to show them that he did well like the matter, but that then he had no commission from the King of Spain for it, and so willed him to go to the Pope, and then to the King of Spain, and to keep the matter secret, chiefly from the French. This examinate cannot tell whether all the parts of the letter came to his hands; he chiefly regarded the point for aid from beyond the seas and not the devices in England. When the Queen of Scots had willed him to commend Ridolphi to the Duke of Norfolk, this examinate sent Barker to the Duke for that purpose. The Duke, by Barker, prayed him to persuade Ridolphi not to seek from the Duke any letters to the Duke of Alva, the Pope, or the King of Spain; because it could not be kept secret, by reason of the great intelligence the Queen had in all these places. He said, however, that when Ridolphi came, he would otherwise by word satisfy him in all things, and so Ridolphi, at his return from the Duke, said he was satisfied by him, as well touching religion as otherwise. This examinate says that the Queen of Scots told him she had understanding from Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir Thomas Gerrard, and Rolleston, that they were reconciled to the Pope, according to the late bull, and that so were many other in Lancashire and the north parts. Ridolphi had six printed copies of the bull, whereof this examinate got one, the Spanish Ambassador one, and the French Ambassador one, but what was done with the other three he cannot tell. There was speech between this examinate and Morgan sundry times, but not of any matters of great importance. He gave into Morgan's custody certain household stuff, books of stories, and such other, but no other thing of secrecy. He obtained from the Queen of Scots for Morgan two letters to the Duchess of Feria, for procuring payment of Morgan's portions in Spain. The device about getting 2,000 men landed in Lancashire out of Brittany, 3,000 on the south side out of Flanders, and 1,000 in Scotland “to hold men occupied,” was opened to this examinate by Hall, as a device agreed upon between him and Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir Thomas Gerrard, Rolleston, “and the rest of that sort.” Hall said that Lancashire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, and other counties thereabout, would rise, and his device was to have kept the Queen of Scots in England, and to have maintained her by force in hope of a rebellion. This examinate liked not that, and thought they would never be able to do so, but advised them rather to carry her into the Isle of Man, and so into Scotland. By “holding men occupied” was meant keeping the Queen of England and her people occupied with the strangers that should have entered. When Lord Cobham conferred with this examinate about the delivery of the packet of letters, and said he would not deliver it if it concerned the Queen; he said further, that if the letters concerned only small matters of money, or relief of those beyond the seas and now in misery, he would be glad to help, and named the Earl of Westmoreland and his friends, saying he was of kin to the Earl. The letters brought by Andrew Beton about the beginning of January last from the Bishop of Glasgow, the Pope's Nuncio, and the Spanish Ambassador, were directed to the Queen of Scots, and carried by Beton to her, and this examinate did Lot know their contents. At the first communication of marriage between the Queen of Scots and the Duke of Norfolk, he had a commandment from her that he should never propose any matter sent from her, or any other matter of great importance to the Queen or to any other, till he had first made the Duke of Norfolk privy thereunto, and had his advice to do so. The letter sent from the Queen of Scots to the Duke was made fast with paper, and this examinate never saw what was in it, nor did he speak with the Duke after sending the letters and instructions, upon the receipt of which the Duke made such answer as is stated in his former examination. The long letter in cipher referred to, received by this examinate from the Queen of Scots, was in English, and the instructions in French, and both agreed in substance. But, beside these instructions, Ridolphi, after this, chew others for his journey, which were, he thinks, written in Italian, or else in French. Their effect was, that he should go first to the Duke of Alva and open his matter to him; then to the Pope's Nuncio at Paris; from thence to the Pop for money; and after to King Philip for men, to be had out of the Low Countries. There was speech of landing them at Harwich, and he thinks the same was also written in the instructions last mentioned. These, he believes, were sent by Barker to the Duke, to whom Ridolphi went afterwards. The device was, that when the army should have entered from beyond the seas, in the south part of England, then the Duke of Norfolk should straight have gone to the Queen of Scots, and have taken her into his own hands, and then have either carried her into Scotland, or else have tarried in England with her, as his force might have served him. This, Ridolphi told him, the Duke and he had agreed upon at their being together, and Ridolphi said he moved the Duke to move his friends, viz., the Earl of Arundel, Lord Lumley, the Earl of Worcester, Lord Montagu, Lord Windsor, and Sir Thomas Stanley, for the Earl of Derby, and many others, to join with him therein. The Duke answered he would not do so till he heard from beyond the seas what they would do for him there. The intent of all parties was that if the Duke of Norfolk and his friends could have made their part good, they would still have kept the Queen of Scots within the realm, or else have fled into Scotland. This examinate was not with the Duke for letters of credit for Ridolphi. When these were first devised they were sent by this examinate to the Duke, and Barker carried them, and brought them again, saying the Duke would not subscribe them, but would satisfy Ridolphi otherwise. Then this examinate, Ridolphi and Barker, devised that the letters should be written, and not subscribed at all, and that Barker should go to the Duke to know whether it was his pleasure that this examinate, Ridolphi, and Barker might all go to the Spanish Ambassador and show him that the Duke would affirm them as well as if he had subscribed them. So Barker went, and the Duke was content they should so do, and, accordingly, all three went to the Spanish Ambassador with the said letters. Ridolphi had letters of credit from the Pope himself, and also from the Pope's Nuncio, to the Queen of Scots. The first came about last summer twelvemonth, and the other about February last. They were conveyed to the Queen of Scots, sent forthwith by her to this examinate, and by him, through Barker, to the Duke. The Queen of Scots was advised by the Duke, the Earl of Arundel, and Lord Lumley not to deliver up the English rebels, being in Scotland, because it was not for her honour so to do. This examinate never spake with the Earl of Southampton but once, and that was in Lambeth Marsh, but, in the time of the late rebellion in the north, the Earl sent one Chamberlain, his servant, to him twice, to know the fate of that rebellion, and to tell him that Leonard Dacres had been with Lord Montagu to require assistance for the rebels, and that Lord Montagu had persuaded Dacres to forsake the matter, and this examinate sent word to the Earl that he thought the rebellion would come to nothing. Taylor of Todcastle said that Dacres came to Lord Montagu to pray him to persuade the Earl of Cumberland to be of that faction. This examinate knew nothing of the rebellion intended in Norfolk, until certain gentlemen were taken for it, and then a Frenchman, a servant of the Duke's, came to him for help to convey him into France, which was done. This Frenchman told him that the rebels intended on Midsummer Day, or on a fair day, ro have made a proclamation in Norwich against such Lords as then ruled in the Court, as Lord Leicester, Lord Burghley, and others, and when they had got the people together then they would have delivered the Duke of Norfolk out of prison. Thinks Caldwell, who was sent by the Duke into the North, can tell much of the rebellion. About summer twelvemonth this examinate dined in Banister's chamber in the Duke's house, and Justice Carous and his wife were there. Shortly after Banister asked him for the book written for the Queen of Scots' title to the Crown of England. This examinate let him have it, and Banister returned the book in fourteen days.
Signed by the Bishop. 12 pp. [Murdin, pp. 32–38. In extenso.]
1698. Interrogatories for the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Oct. 31.Copy of the first six of the preceding 28 interrogatories.
pp.
1699. Examination of Lord Lumley.
1571, Oct. 31About the beginning of the last Parliament, he received by the hands of Raw, his man, a letter in Italian, who received the same from the Bishop of Ross; in which letter there were three or four lines in cipher, which examinate did not understand. So much thereof as was in Italian contained no other matter than commendations and advertisement of his good arrival in Flanders. Examinate burned the letter immediately without seeking the deciphering of that part thereof that was in cipher, and did reprove his man for bringing the same, and charged him he should not thenceforth bring him any such letter. The said letter had no direction by cipher or otherwise to examinate, and was not subscribed with the name of Ridolphi, nor with any cipher for the same that he knew. He further says he never knew that the same came from Ridolphi, nor had any such understanding from the Bishop of Ross or any other.
Headed:—“The examination of the Lord Lumley, the last of October Ao 1571.”
Signed. ¾ p.
1700. Interrogatories for the Earl of Southampton.
1571, Oct. 31.Referring to the bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth.
Endorsed :—Ult. Oct. 1571.
pp.
1701. Examination of the Earl of Southampton.
1571, Oct. 31.Says that he has not seen nor received from any, any writing touching the said bull; nor has seen the same in print; nor knows the contents thereof, otherwise than by common and general report; he has had no conference with any touching the effect or contents of the same bull, nor ever declared his mini or opinion regarding it to any person. He never sent White, or Wilkinson, or any other, to the Bishop of Ross, to require that he might speak with him. He never spake with the Bishop, but once, in Lambeth Marsh, where he met him by chance, and had no talk with him of any effect, save that he asked the Bishop where his mistress was, and that he showed examinate the state of Scotland and of the factions there. Examinate had no conference with the Bishop touching the bull, nor moved any matter of doubt in conscience to him, nor talked with him of any matter touching the Queen's Majesty. He never had any conference with the Bishop, or any other, touching the late rebellion in the North. He never knew nor heard of any device for the taking away of the Queen of Scots, nor knows any that have been privy thereunto, nor ever promised any aid for that purpose. He knows not, nor has heard of, any strangers to land in this realm, nor has promised any aid or relief to them, nor knows of any who have so done. He has only heard by common report touching the marriage between the Duke and the Scottish Queen, but never promised any furtherance thereunto. He knew Ridolphi by sight in Lord Arundel's house, but never spake with him, nor knows of any message sent by him from the Queen of Scots or any other. He never saw any book concerning the Scottish Queen's title, written or printed, nor knows any that have been the makers or doers thereof.
Headed:—“The Examination of the Earl of Southampton, taken ultimo October Ao 1571.”
Signed by Sir R. Sadler, G. Gerrard, and T. Bromley. 1½ pp.
1702. Answer of Thomas Bishop, prisoner in the Tower, touching the money received by appointment of the Scottish Queen.
1571, Oct. 31.His eldest son, late of Lincoln's Inn, seeking in marriage a daughter-in-law of Alderman Langley, for redeeming a lease of lands liable to forfeiture, wrote to deponent that if he would send to the Queen of Scots for the loan of 300l. he might have it. After divers refusals, his son required him to write to the Duke of Norfolk for it. In the result there was received from Legyngs, the Duke's servant, two or three hundred pounds, deponent cannot certainly say what was the exact sum. Seven score pounds and 10 angels his son bestowed on a chain made by Ask, goldsmith, of Cheapside. Deponent being angry therewith his son promised to deliver him the chain, but did not. The rest of the money he spent on clothes and jewels in furtherance of his marriage, with the Duke's concurrence. Deponent never had a penny, but even borrowed of Ratcliff, a schoolmaster, to pay his prison charges. Has heard that when the Queen was in progress towards Portsmouth the Duke by Legyngs borrowed 300l.. and that it was delivered to Fleming, who carried it to Dumbarton. Also that the Duke defrayed at sundry times the expense of the Bishop of Ross's affairs and furniture, which was repaid on receipt of the Duke and his factors from 10,000 crowns received from Ridolfi and sent by Alva.
pp.
1703. Confession of Richard Lowther.
1571, Oct. 31.Is guiltless of treason against the Queen or Privy Council, of privity in the Earls' rebellion, and of communications with the Queen of Scots. From the Duke of Norfolk has received letters on his lawful affairs, never for money to be conveyed into Scotland to Lord Herries or others. Has sundry times corresponded with his brother Gerard, to redeem whose fault he will deliver him to their Lordships, saving his life, if in England.
Signed. 1 p.
1704. Examination of Thomas Watkins, of Aston, Co. Salop, Yeoman, taken at Morton Corbett before Sir Andrew Corbett.
1571, Oct. 31.Touching a conversation with Banister upon the subject of Henry VIII.'s will, which he said was made after his death, Sir Thos. Bromley and the other justice having certain lands given them for subscribing or being witnesses to the will. Passing the dwelling of one Wm. Mody, near Overley, said to be rich and a niggard, Banister answered that within a while small difference there would be “between the riches of the rich and poor” (sic.
Notes in the margin by Burghley. 2½ pp.
1705. Further Examinations at Morton Corbett, before Sir Andrew Corbett, touching Banister, of the following persons.
1571, Oct. 31.Thomas Ley, Eliz. Fox, Ralph Poole, Richd. Evans, Thos. Morris, John Bromehull, Humfrey Jebb, Wm, Browghill, Reginald Downe, Richd. Tyler, &c.
Marginal Notes by Burghley. 6¾ pp.
1706. Information touching Wm. Brownridge.
[1571, Oct.].That he, being servant to Thomas Cobham, came divers times to one Bertewe of St. Mary Axe and received several letters to carry to Dover and Sandwich.
½ p.
1707. Confession of William Barker.
1571, Nov. 1.Speaks of his going to the Spanish Ambassador, and also of the proposed design for breaking up the Parliament.
Endorsed:—1 Nov. 1571.
Holograph. 3 pp. [Murdin, p. 124. In extenso.]
1708. Interrogatories and Answers of John Hall.
1571, Nov. 1.“John Hall, prisoner in the Tower, examined the first day of November ao 1571. To all the articles saith he was never with the Bishop of Ross but once in all his life, and that was about the xth of September, ao 1570, in the Bishop's gallery at Islington, and constantly saith he had no other conference with him save only that which he hath fully declared in his former examination. And saith that whatsoever talk had passed between this examinate and the Bishop, this examinate told it to Sir Thomas Stanley at Latham within ten or twelve days after, and the next day told it also to Sir Thomas Gerrard at his house at Brinne, and saith he told it to no man else; but saith he went from the Bishop of Ross first to the Lord Montague, and there tarried two days and two nights, and from thence went to Latham as is aforesaid to Sir Thomas Stanley, but he saith he told the Lord Montague nothing of the matter.—John Halle.”
pp.
1709. Statement by the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 2.After telling of certain messages that passed between him and the Earl of Southampton, he describes in detail the conference that took place between them in Lambeth Marsh (May 1570). The Bishop advised the Earl to refrain from taking any part in the rebellion in the North, for which advice the Earl afterwards thanked him. The conference between them was on the subject of Queen Mary's affairs, and also on the Papal bull issued against Elizabeth. The Earl of Southampton asked, with reference to the bull, whether the Queen's subjects might with safe consciences obey her. The Bishop of Ross counselled submission, as the bull did not chargs her subjects “under pains of cursing,” and “so long as the Queen was the strongest party, he [the Earl] might well obey.”—The Tower, 2 Nov. 1571.
Holograph. 3½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 38–40. In extenso.]
1710. The Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 3.Statement by the Bishop of Ross, in reply to two questions put to him about the design for breaking up the Parliament, and about the rebellion in the North. The Bishop relates bow he got daily information of “what was propounded” in Parliament, partly by Barker and Mr. Ferys of St. Albans, “for they were of the Lower House, and partly by Ridolphi, “who frequented the Earl of Arundel's house daily.” Discontent of the Catholic nobles. The Duke of Norfolk would attempt nothing, until he got answer from the princes beyond the seas. The matter of the Duke's proposed marriage with Queen Mary. Attributes the rebellion in the north to the continual communication kept up between Queen Mary and the Duke, and between them and the Earls in the north.—1571, Nov. 3.
A note is appended in Lord Burghley's handwriting, and signed by the Bishop, as follows:—“The Bishop of Ross was at Howard House 3 clays before the Duke fled from thence into Norfolk, and in his company was Gartly the Scottishman, who told him at that time of certain speeches that the Viscount of Hereford had spoken at the Earl of Shrewsbury's table against the Duke of Norfolk; it was at that time when Robinson brought to him a ring from the Scottish Queen.”
pp. [Murdin, pp. 43–45. In extenso.]
1711. Answers of the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 3.Referring to the design for breaking up the Parliament; the dislike of Mary to the Duke's submission to Elizabeth; Ridolphi's commission from the Pope; Thomas Bishop and Oswald Wilkinson, and the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland; Ledington and the Duke of Norfolk at York, &c.—3 Nov. 1571.
In Burghley's handwriting and signed by the Bishop, 3 pp.
[Murdin, pp. 41–43. In extenso.]
1712. The Bishop of Ross to Queen Mary.
[1571, Nov. 3].Had conferred at great length with L[edington], who told him of his conference with the Duke of Norfolk at York. The Duke told L. that the Queen would not end Mary's cause at that time, but hold it in suspense. Their advice that Mary should write to Elizabeth not to believe the statements of her enemies, that she would use Elizabeth's counsel in all her affairs, and would prefer her friendship to all other, offering to stay in England until Elizabeth was satisfied, provided Scotland was held in quietness, and ber true subjects restored and maintained in their own estate.
Endorsed:—“Bishop of Ross apprehendit at Newcastle.”
Holograph. 1½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 45, 46. In extenso.]
1713. “The Declaration of Elizabeth Massey, wife to the Parson in the Tower.”
1571, Nov. 3.At the Duke's first imprisonment at the Tower one Jervys, serving there, sent his daughter, aged seven, almost daily to the Duke's chamber with nosegays, and [she] returned home “sometimes with a golden groat, and otherwhiles both gold and silver groats (as the child called them),” which was espied by the said Elizabeth and misliked, for that the said Jervys showed “great diligent attendance” to please the Duke, and also had seen him before times very conversant with Feckenham and other papists, and that he prayed God to save them, and send their hearts' desire. Whereupon the said Jervys doth revile, and all ways that he can molest the said Elizabeth, both with threatenings and strokes. And now lately, on Allhallows night, he counselled her husband to put her away with many evil words betwixt them. Then the said Elizabeth called the said Jervys traitor, for that she had seen his doings divers times, and now this other day bread and meat were thrown to him over the wall from some of the prisoners, which he received, and had often done so to others before. The sane eveninjr, about eight of the clock, Jervys met her, saying, “Whither goest thou?” She answered to the Lieutenant to complain of him. Then he struck her upon the arm with his halberd, and overthrew her into the “myute” [? moat]. And, if it please the Queen's Majesty, she offereth to show in her conscience that there be divers in the Tower that she suspecteth not to be true, or to bear good will to her Majesty; whose names follow:—Fermar, Hill, Hayward, Morris, Werrhall, “Pottemoore” [Podmore] Hopkin, Oliver, and Jennings. She suspecteth also Lady Eleanor because she spake divers times at the window with the Duke at his first imprisonment, and sent one of her children to him almost every day. Further the said Elizabeth saith that at such time as she was procured by certain signs to deliver and receive letters from the Duke secretly, by his laundress, the same said unto her that she should serve God and pray for the Duke, whereby she should lack nothing, for he thinketh well of you. And as for the Queen, [she] shall not be long Queen, being a bastard. And that the Queen could not take the Duke's life from him, although she might keep him in prison, for he hath too many “sparkes” abroad, advising the said Elizabeth to work wisely, and not to declare anything to the, Lieutenant, to Lord Burghley, Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Ralph Sadler, nor to the Master of St. Katherine's, for they were not the Duke's friends. Moreover, the said Elizabeth saith that about three weeks past the said laundress, meeting her in Aldersgate Street, said that she should be well recompensed for her pain before it were long, because she thought her not now friendly towards the Duke.
Endorsed by Lord Burghley:—“3 Novemb. 1571. Elizab. Massy, ye minister's wiff in ye Tower.”
pp.
1714. Interrogatories and Answers of the Duke of Norfolk.
1571, Nov. 3.Touching the design for breaking up the Parliament; the Duke's conference with Ledington at York, &c.—3 Nov. 1571.
In Lord Burghley's hand. Signed. 1¾ pp. [Murdin, p. 164. In extenso.]
1715. Statement by the Earl of Southampton.
1571, Nov. 3.One Nicholas Wilkinson moved him to speak with the Bishop of Ross, of whom he should hear all the news that were abroad, and so coming to the Bishop, in the Marsh at Lambeth, he asked him of the bull that was lately published in London, whereunto the Bishop answered that he had some of them; and then he required that he might see one of them, whereupon the Bishop sent him one of the bulls in print the next morning by Nicholas Wilkinson, and after that he had read it, he sent it back again to the Bishop of Ross by Wilkinson. He also asked him whether the Queen of Scots should marry the Duke of Norfolk, whereunto he answered that she would do therein as the nobility of England and Scotland would allow. The Earl sent one Greorge Chamberlain, a servant of Viscount Montague, to the Bishop of Ross, to understand of the news of matters of Scotland, and of the. . . . . .—3 Nov. 1571.
[The date of May 1570 is put by Lord Burghley in the margin of the statement, and that of Jan, 1569 in the margin against the last sentence.] In Burghley's hand. Imperfect, ¾ p.
1716. Interrogatories for the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 3.With reference to his communications with the Duke of Norfolk and others as to an enterprise to take the Queen and disturb the Parliament; his dealings with Ridolfi; and as to the messages sent to the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland in the name of the Spanish Ambassador and the Duke of Alva.—3 Nov. 1571.
In Lord Burghley's hand. 1 p. [Murdin, p. 41. In extenso.]
1717. Interrogatories for and Examination of the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 6.Gives many details about the letters to be sent to the Duke of Alva, the Pope, and the King of Spain, from the Duke of Norfolk, about the design for bringing foreign troops into England; the grant of money by the Pope to the English rebels; and the arrival of Servy, a servant of the Queen of Scots, from Lord Seton in Flanders, with letters. He tells also of the contents of Ridolphi's letter to Lord Lumley; the cipher used by Ridolphi; his interviews with the Duke of Norfolk; Elizabeth's sharp words to the Duke with regard to his marriage with Mary; the design to murder the Earl of Murray near Northallerton; his conferences with Mr. Ferrys; the Scottish Queen's intercession with the Duke of Norfolk for Leonard Dacres, &c.—6 Nov. 1571.
Signed. 13½ pp. [Murdin, pp. 46–51. In extenso.]
1718. Interrogatories for and Examination of Barker.
1571, Nov. 6.They refer to the distribution of the money sent by the Pope; the conferences of the Bishop of Ross with the Duke of Norfolk at Howard House; the Duke's summons to Court; certain letters from the Queen of Scots, the Pope and his Nuncio; the conferences between Barker and Ridolphi at Bidolphi's house; the angry letter from the Queen of Scots to the Bishop of Ross in the Parliament time; the conference of Ridolphi with the Spanish Ambassador, in the hearing of the Bishop of Ross and Barker; and the conference between the Bishop of Ross and Barker about the letters brought by Servy from Flanders.—6 Nov. 1571.
[The answers are wholly written by Barker, who gives the 7th of November as the date.]
Endorsed:—“To the right worshipful Mr. Gerrard, Attorney-General to her Majesty.—At Gray's Inn or elsewhere in London.”
13¼ pp. [Murdin, pp. 125–129. In extenso.]
1719. Statement by the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 6.Gives a detailed account of the proceedings between the Queen of Scots and the Duke of Norfolk, immediately after her first arrival in England, and during the conference at York, by their “mediators and ministers.” He dwells especially on his interview with the Duke at York. The Bishop also touches on the talk at Hampton Court about the proposed marriage between the Scots' Queen and the Duke.
Headed:—“At the Tower, the sixth of November 1571.”
Signed. 4 pp. [Murdin, pp. 52–54. In extenso.]
1720. The Bishop of Ross to the Queen of Scots.
1571, Nov. 8.Has obtained leave to write to Her Highness. Tells how, after being kept two months at the Bishop of Ely's house, he was taken to London, and committed to the Lord Mayor's house. His appearance there before certain Lords of the Council. Refusing to make full and particular answer to their demands, he was sent to the Tower. His examinations there. Is shown how much has been confessed by the Duke of Norfolk and his servants, and sees how a great many of her Majesty's letters, and of his, &c, to the Duke, had got into the Council's hands. Compelled thus to give a full account of the proceedings between Her Majesty and the Duke, and how she was moved to give ear to such devices as were lately propounded. The Scots' Queen's commission to Ridolphi. Considers the discovery of the aforesaid designs to proceed from God's special Providence, that so neither Her Majesty nor her friends should, in time coming, attend for relief by any such means. Wishes her to write to Elizabeth and to some of her Council, as also for his delivery from the Tower. His want of money: beseeches her Majesty to write to France, and to the French Ambassador resident in England, to cause some to be sent over, for, amongst other matters, the Duke has uttered to the Council, that he stands bound to a merchant banker for 500l. sterling, which was borrowed and bestowed on her Majesty's service this last year, and which should have been paid the last Michaelmas, as Her Majesty doth well know.—The Tower, 8th Nov.
Endorsed by Lord Burghley:—“8 Novemb. 1571. The Bishop of Ross to the Queen of Scots, out of the Tower.”
pp. [Murdin, pp. 54–57. In extenso.]
1721. Dr. Thomas Wilson to Lord Burghley.
1571, Nov. 8.Barker's last declaration differs little from the former confession, save that for the distributing of 12,000 crowns and the commission for 100,000 crowns he agreeth with the Bishop and saith that he made his master privy to the same who answered “Well! well!” and did not mislike any such dealings and devices. The Bishop saith that the token which Robinson brought was not a pillow, for one Bortyk brought the pillow which was wrought with the Scottish Queen's own hands, with the arms of Scotland and a hand with a sword in it cutting vines with this sentence, Virescit vulnere virtus, declaring thereby her courage, and willing the Duke by such a watch sentence to take a good heart unto him. The Bishop seemeth very glad that these practices are come to light, saying they are all nought, and he hopeth that when folk leave to be lewd his witness shall speed the better. He saith further that the Queen [Mary] is not fit for any husband. For first she poisoned her husband the French King, again she hath consented to the murder of her late husband, Lord Darnley, thirdly she matched with the murderer and brought him to the field to be murdered, and last of all she pretended marriage with the Duke, with whom (as he thinketh) she would not long have kept faithv and the Duke should not have had the best days with her. Lord, what people are these, what a Queen, what an Ambassador!
Sends as much as is translated into handsome Scotch and desires to have sent to him Paris's, closely sealed.
1 p. [Murdin, p. 57. In extenso.]
1722. The Duke of Norfolk to Lord Burghley.
1571, Nov. 10.Sends some further “writings” to be delivered to the Queen. Declares that he did not enter into the question of marriage with the Scots' Queen, thinking he could bring it to pass by his own credit, but hoping by the credit of others to have performed it with her Majesty's favour. Cannot excuse his prosecuting thereof after his former confessions. Yields wholly to Her Majesty. His state of body and mind. Begs for Lord Burghley's intercession on his behalf. “And so I take my leave this 10 of Nov. 1571, by the hand of him that never had more need of your lordship's most friendly favour.—T. Norfolk.”
Endorsed by Lord Burghley:—“The Duke of Norfolk with his letter and declaration to the Queen's Majesty sent by Mr. H. Skipwith.”
Holograph. 1 p. [Murdin, pp. 164, 165. In extenso.]
1723. — to —.
1571, Nov. 13.“Since my writing this day I have spoken the French Ambassador, who showed me that “Lasis” and sundry others [of the] Council dined with him yesterday, but Burghley was not with him. They showed him that “G-las,” my Lord . . .and Leven, passed to the French King [“king fra “] and made a heavy complaint, showing that the Queen of Scots and your “a” were so evil handled, as if ye were but sober of estimation. . . . . more, that your lives were in great danger, and that it was plainly spoken that ye should not escape: therefore prayed his Majesty to take some order with it in time. The king's answer was that he should write to the Queen of England, assuring her, if she would not deal more gently nor she did with the Queen of Scots and you, that he would put to his hand in time to it, for he would not suffer, neither the Queen of Scots nor her ambassador incur no danger. The king sent for Walsingham, the English ambassador, and shewed him all this, and bade him write, to the Queen of England, and shew his whole mind therein, which he did. The king has not written himself as [yet], but it is looked for early. The Council upon this shewed the ambassador that they would do all that lay in them for the Queen's weal and yours, and for . . . your liberty. The Spanish ambassador dined with him this day. [symbol] left . . . sarks of yours, that he had taken forth of the trunk which was in. . . . . . . .and sent word to Wm. L. to receive them from Melch . . . and they cannot be found. He has been minded to have taken th . . . with him. However it be, I can get none of them again. There is . . . further to advertise you at this present. I pray your lordship to let me have your lordship's old black gown that Wm. Leslie wore, to be a gown to me against this cold weather, for it is also so worn that your lordship will not wear . . . again. If I have a gown, I will be for less seints [girdles] nor when I go in a cloak; for I am sundry times troubled with the constables, which costs money. This xiij. of November 1571.”
1 p.
1724. Sir Owen Hopton to Lord Burghley.
[1571], Nov. 13.Forwards a letter sent to the Bishop of Ross from the French Ambassador. The conveyance of these advertisements is so covert, that his “mane is not mystrysted,” and he has made seals like the Bishop's and the Ambassador's. Lord Burghley's further pleasure shall be done.—13 Nov. Prays his Lordship to hasten the return of the messenger, for the Bishop means to reply that night.
Notes in Lord Burghley's hand:—“G. R. came from Scotland and brought letters to [symbol] and the French Ambassador from Grange and Huntly. G. R. is depeshet away by the French Ambassador, and he gave him five pounds. J. Burdet, Jane Beton (?) in another house: Theophilus remains and has his wages. The cook with the Spanish Ambassador. Cuthbert is in a brewer's house at Lilypot Lane besides Foster Lane.—Tuesday 13 Nov.”
The endorsement by Lord Burghley, which is partly torn away, is:—“the lieut. . . . with Cuthbert Rede's letter.”
1 p.
1725. Beton, Bishop of Glasgow to the Queen of Scots.
1571, Nov. 14.Since his last letter of the 1st September, had come to this Court, and had audience of the Queen Mother on the 9th of the same month, but not of the King, because on that day he entertained the Ambassadors from Venice. Related the contents of her ciphers of the 13th and 18th July, and pointed out the urgency of the Queen's affairs. The Queen Mother asked, of what use the help of the King, her son, would be? To which he replied: to retain those who still remained obedient to their Sovereign. She then said, that she understood that the Queen of England talked of some agreement, of which they would know more on the arrival of Mons. De Foix; but would declare nothing as to the captain and 300 men, nor of the 30,000 francs which she and M. Pynart had assured him were ready. Has since learnt that the King wrote to his Ambassador on the 10th of September, to require an armistice in Scotland and to negotiate a treaty. The difficulties of the King's own position prevent him from aiding her as he could wish, joined to which, he would not inconsiderately embark in a war with the Queen of England. The Queen of Scots and her son would, however, be included in the offensive and defensive league; and La Mothe had full instructions from the King as to her affairs. The King had also written to La Mothe as to the Queen's affairs, which the writer forbears, for fear, from repeating. He received from De Foix on the 15th of the same month her cipher of the 28th August, who also told him that her affairs had been very badly managed over there. The English Ambassador told him about the same time that the marriage only depended on the coronation and religion. Sees no probability that this marriage will take place shortly or ever. And what confirms his opinion is, that Mons. D'Anjou being asked by his mother why he would not listen to the marriage, replied, for reasons which he had formerly heard from herself; and on being asked why he had previously consented, said, because he thought she would have deceived him as she had the others. This he heard from M. Vilequier, who assured him further that he had heard from the mouth of the said M. D'Anjou, that he would never consent to the marriage, and that the said Monsieur well remembered an incident told to him by the Queen Mother.
Killigrew and Sir Thomas Smith are here for the purpose of conveying the answer to the negotiation of M. De Foix. It appears to him that, in truth, it is pretended to include the King and Queen of Scotland in the league without wishing it for either; and in this he is further confirmed by what—told him on his arrival here the 20th of September, that La Mothe told him in London that their Majesties' only aim was to maintain the State. According to the said English Ambassador, Seton's negotiation in Flanders was very much disliked in England, and it appeared to him that the King of Spain was already taking the Queen of Scots and her affairs under his protection. He wished to sound the writer as to the money placed in the hands of one of the secretaries of the Duke of Norfolk, but having previously been warned by Cuthbert, he answered that it might have been his own [the writer's], because he had sent some one to La Mothe, and had not received any answer what had been done with it (as indeed he had sent 200 crowns for his brother), and did not enlighten him further.
To return to his first purpose, having received her letter by De Foix he asked for an audience of their Majesties, as well to hear their deferred decision as to advertise them of what was contained in her cipher of the 28th of August. But he could not have audience until the 23rd of September when he presented—to the King and not to the Queen Mother, who still kept her room, having been unwell about 12 or 15 days, and sent to him to tell the King the whole state of affairs. He pointed out to the King and M. D'Anjou the reason why the Queen of Scots wished that—should be sent into Scotland, and besides her letters which—delivered to their Majesties he added from his own all that was possible. He besought them, owing to the return of De Foix and the news which he had of the death of the Regent, to avail themselves of such a good opportunity to help her cause, without wailing any longer. They put him off in order to communicate with the Queen Mother, the Duke D'Anjou promising to relate the whole matter. Finding nothing but delays he requested an audience, which was fixed for the 28th of the same month having the day before received communication of two letters written to La Mothe on the 7th and 9th September, containing the particulnrs of the extreme rigour shown towards her by the Queen of England. On that day he only saw the Queen Mother, but received no answer beyond a postponement till the next day, which, however, did not take place till the 5th of October, when he was joined by Lord Fleming, who had instructions to return to Scotland, and who; it was pointed out, would on his arrival be asked for an answer to the proposal made to their Majesties at Montceaulx. They were again put off fill the 8th of the same month, by which time the Queen Mother had quite changed her tone, telling him that La Mothe had informed them that the Earls of Morton and Mar had proposed that provided she (Queen of Scots) consented to the coronation of her son, and that he were joined with her, and equal in authority, they would consent to her return, and solicit her deliverance. This the Queen Mother and the Council thought very reasonable, and asked his opinion of it, which, however, he said he was hardly able to give as the matter was new to him. He then urged various points in her behalf, and suggested that their Majesties should send some personage of quality to visit and console her, and to ascertain her condition. This the Queen Mother approved of, but said that it would be necessary to speak to the King and [Mons. D'Anjou], She said also that the King was determined to help those in Edinburgh, and, in fact, to send money by Lord Fleming. But the Council were opposed to sending any men. They then pressed the point of being allowed to levy some soldiers at their expense, and that the Queen of Scots' uncles and other adherents should bear the responsibility of it. Ultimately she referred them to the King, who gave them in almost the same words the reply given by the Queen Mother, and added that by this means the Queen of Scots would remove the mask before the world, and show that her only aim was the proper education and advancement of her son, at whose age all the government would rest with her. As for M. D'Anjou he assured them in general terms that he would do all he could for her service. Lord Fleming and the writer took every opportunity from day to day in the matter until the arrival of Lord Leviston on the 12th inst. On the 16th he presented Leviston, the Queen Mother reading his instructions word by word. She listened most attentively to the recital of the bad treatment and rigour shown towards her (Queen of Scots) as well as of her indisposition, and the writer earnestly besought the Queen Mother to declare her intentions before her departure. The King and M. D'Anjou also read the instructions. And although the Queen Mother said they did not leave till the Monday yet they left on the morrow, which was Wednesday, without notifying anything. True it is, however, that immediately after their departure M. Gondy came and informed them that for the present their Majesties could only aid them with 10,000 livres, which the Marshal de Cossé would deliver to Lord Fleming at Paris, who was also permitted to levy 300 men to take into Scotland. Also having known since the 16th inst. that their Majesties were sending M. de Puynguillon with letters of credence to the Queen of Scots' uncles and relations of the House of Guise, to persuade them to come shortly to some agreement with the Admiral, he prayed Puynguillon to remind the Queen Mother of the Queen of Scots. Had advised Lord Fleming, after he had parted from their Majesties, and received the permission to raise men, as also letters' from the King to the Queen of Scots' supporters in Scotland, that in order to receive the money he should seek out the Cardinal of Lorraine and M. de Montmorency to take their advice for his journey, which he did. And, besides the 10,000 livres, their Majesties ordered two pieces of ordnance to be delivered to Lord Fleming, which he would take in Brittany or at Havre de Grace. But above all their Majesties do not desire that the Queen of England should know that these things come from them, having given express orders that the pieces of ordnance should not be marked with their arms, nor with others by which they might be recognised. On returning from his audience on the 28th September he met the Duke de Montmorency who prayed him to assure the Queen of Scots that he would do her as good service as any man in Scotland. Begs to know how he shall answer their Majesties as concerning the Morton and Mar treaty, as apparently it only awaits her consent.—Blois, 26 October 1571.
P.S.—is still here, and does not expect that he will receive other favour for his journey but letters and commissions. The Admiral has been at Court about five weeks, as great and intimate a courtier as ever, being always with the King, the Queen Mother, or M. D'Anjou. As for the marriage of Madame [Marguerite de France] with the Prince of Navarre, it is still in the same position. The sudden departure of the bearer, M. de Vassal, who belongs to M. de la Mothe, does not permit him to write what he has negotiated this day with their Majesties at D'Urtail. The bearer, whom he met on leaving the audience, promised to await this packet which he had already written at La Fleche on the 14th of November. Will communicate further as to the rest, which he hopes will be agreeable to her.
Endorsed by Burghley:—A letter from the Bishop of Glasgow to the Scots' Queen, found at Sheffield in June 1572.
In cipher. 7½ pp.
Contemporary decipher of the preceding.
[Murdin, pp. 233–240. The greater portion in extenso; some passages are, however, entirely omitted by Murdin, and other parts require material correction.]
French. 11½ pp.
1726. Sir Owen Hopton to the Earl of Leicester.
1571, Nov. 14.“Right Honorable, if it stand with your good pleasure to license Mr. Loder to have the leads, I pray your lordship I may understand by my son this bearer. I have sent you a picture of Christ, which was in Loder's comb-case, whereby is partly seen the lewdness of his religion. I have also sent you one other picture, which I took from Antony Norton, when I put him to wait of (sic) his master the Duke. Thus, as I am most bound, I rest always to be employed at your commandment, as knoweth God, who send you long happy life.—From the Tower, the xiiijth of November, Ao 1571.”
Endorsed by Lord Burghley;—“14 Nov. 1571. Sir Owyn Hopton to the Earl of Leicester—Lowther.”
¾ p.
1727. Henry Skipwith to Lord Burghley.
1571, Nov. 14.“According to your lordship's letter, I have dealt with the Duke, whom I found very much appalled, and sure he shed many tears, and saith that he can write nothing more concerning the great matters, or anything else that concerns Her Majesty or the State. I have used as many ways as I can to persuade him, but other answer than this I cannot get. He concludeth in great lamenting manner for Her Majesty's indignation, and saith he knoweth not how to redress it. And thus in most humble manner I take my leave.—From the Tower: xiiij. of November.”
Endorsed:—14 Nov. 1571.
¾ p.
1728. — to —.
[? 1571].Writer states that he wrote a letter to his brother Isaac concerning certain traitorous persons, both English and Scottish, who were to come into England (it was to be thought) for little good; two priests, Father Wright and Father Elvison, one Gilman, one Hanmar, and one Captain Sutherland, a Scot, who was then there at Prague, and came thither with the said Jesuits, and was in the lodging used by Englishmen. He spake very insolently, and declined to pledge the King's Majesty's health, and said he would come into England, and talk with Sir Wm. Stanley, concerning a pledge they long since made together, with a vow to break a spear against the King's breast, and would ask him why his spear was yet whole. The captain was known to be a wicked man and a murderer, and was to conduct the foresaid persons through Scotland into England. He soon left the English lodging, and said he would go out of the town, but he was yet there. He said that Gilman was dead, but some thought he was gone about another matter. This the writer thought good to note, that his correspondent might “give further to understand therein.”—Undated.
No signature or address. ½ p.
1729. Bishop of Ross to Lord Burghley.
1571, Nov. 16.Expresses his regret at Lord Burghley's illness. Refers to his zeal and care for the Queen of Scots for nearly four years in England. His counsels for adopting a course of submission to Elizabeth, overruled by foreign princes and others, who advised an opposite policy, and promised aid. Failure of these promises as the Bishop expected. The Queen of Scots' despair of any relief from Elizabeth, the cause of her giving ear to such evil devices. Desires that some means may be taken to remove this opinion from her. After leaving the Bishop of Ely's house, he directed his servants to repair to London, and desire the French Ambassador to labour at Court for his liberty, and get knowledge as to the intentions of the council regarding the Bishop, and as to the confessions of the Duke of Norfolk and his servants. The French Ambassador did so, but in vain; Elizabeth refusing any longer to consider the Bishop an Ambassador. Advice of the French Ambassador to the Bishop. The plain answers of the latter on all heads at a subsequent time, due to his hearing from the Council the matters they had elicited. Asks to be informed what the Duke and his servants uttered of these things before his [the Bishop's] coming forth of the country, and for that purpose to inspect such part of their depositions as may satisfy in that respect; that he may affirm the truth of the same to his mistress. Prays for release from the Tower. Thanks Lord Burghley for his advertisement of the estate of Scotland.—The Tower, 16 Nov. 1571.
pp. [Murdin, pp. 58–60. In extenso.]
1730. The Queen to the Lord Keeper, the Earl of Leicester, Lord Burghley, Sir W. Mildmay, and others.
1571, Nov. 23.Authorising them, or any three of them, to take the care of, and give direction for the payment of the loan.
Draft, with Burghley's corrections. 1 p.
1731. Examination of Lawrence Banister.
1571, Nov. 29.Concerning two letters received by him in the previous August, one from Higford in cipher, and the other from the Queen of Scots. The latter was directed to Lord Herries, and was written to comfort and encourage the Queen's party in Scotland.
Headed;—“The examination of Lawrence Banister taken the 29th day of November Ao 1571.”
Signed. 1 p. [Murdin, p. 145. In extenso.]
1732. Examination of the Bishop of Ross.
1571, Nov. 29.States that the 12,000 crowns, sent by the Pope for the English rebels, were principally procured by the letters of the rebels sent to Rome, and by means of a Doctor Moreton who had reconciled several of the rebels to the Church of Rome. He knew of the distribution of the money by a letter of thanks received by him from the Countess of Northumberland. Letter from the Pope to the English rebels shown by Ridolphi to the Bishop. The Bishop tells the Duke of Norfolk, through Barker, of the Countess's letter.
Headed:—“The examination of the Bishop of Ross, taken at the Tower of London, the 29th of November Ao 1571.”
Signed. 1¾ pp. [Murdin, pp. 60, 61. In extenso.]
1733. Sums due from and to the Duke of Norfolk before 30th Nov. 1571.
1571, Nov. 30.The total amount due from the Duke is 3,958l. 17s., of which the principal sums are 1,000l. owing to Lord Leicester, and 2,000l. to Sir Rowland Heyward. The total amount due to the Duke is 3,411l. 13s. 4d., of which the principal sums are Lord Buckhurst 100l., Lord Leicester for Paget House 200l., and for a jewel, 335l., Lawrence Banister for sale of cattle 320l., Wm. Pawne for Tollesbury Manor 606l. 13s. 4d. There is growing due to the Duke of his revenue at Hallowmass, all annuities discharged, about 1,600l. 239l. 12s. 4d. is owing for victuals to 27 Sept. 1571, and 200l. to the workmen at Howard House.
Endorsed by Burghley. 1¼ p.
1734. The Bishop of Ross to Lord Burghley.
1571, Nov. 30.Is greatly indebted to the Queen's Majesty for satisfying him by the sight of the “wrettis” which Doctor Wilson showed unto him, so that now he stands with a contented mind. He likewise understands that neither in earnest or otherwise his Lordship will affirm anything but that which is true. By Lord Shrewsbury's letter it seems that the Queen, his mistress, taketh his proceedings not well, whereof he is sorry, knowing how faithful and diligent a servant he has been to further her affairs by all honest means. Thinks that he has but done his duty, et quod dixi dixi, which is conform to the truth, and so cannot nor will not refuse it. Prays Burghley to consider the best means for satisfying his mistress, and also for his own relief.—“At the Tower, this last of November, 1571.”
1 p. [Murdin, p. 61. In extenso.]
1735. Interrogatories (sixteen in number) for Laurence Banastre.
1571, Nov. 30.Endorsed:—Mem.—To know my Lord Burghley's pleasure for the Scotch woman. Mem.—To remember for the sister of the Lord Sheffield for 420l. 13s. 4d., residue of a legacy. (Omitted by Murdin.)
pp. [Murdin, pp. 145, 146. In extenso.]
1736. Examination of Laurence Banastre.
157l, Nov. 30.Deponent had not any speech touching the will of King Henry the Eighth, but heard say that Sir Thomas Bromley had a hundred pounds land given him (in connexion with it). He did not say that the Duke [of Norfolk] would make an escape out of the Charter House shortly, and make some stir. He knoweth not of any of Leonard Dacre's band that were lodged at Wemme by his order. He saith that the Duke of Norfolk's footman was with him at Wemme twice or thrice, and in the beginning of August last he brought the letter in cipher from Higford for the conveying of a letter of the Queen of Scots into Scotland. It is true that Gerard Lowther came to Graystock about August twelvemonth in the night time, and the whole effect of the talk between him and this examinate was to declare at what places he had passed his time since his flight. He did not at any time dispute the validity of Henry VIII.'s will. Thinks he did say that the Duke's marriage with the Scottish Queen would be his undoing.
Signed. 2 pp. [Murdin, pp. 146, 147. In extenso.]
1737. The Queen to the Earl of Shrewsbury.
[1571, Dec. 1.] (fn. 1) For the special trust he deserves and for the honour of his estate, the Queen has determined to admit him of the Privy Council. Though she is well assured of his fidelity, yet for order sake Lord Burghley will send him the copy of the usual oath. The Countess is to understand that the Queen does in very good part accept her manner of service.
Draft by Burghley. 1 p.
1738. Interrogatories and Examination of Edmund Powell.
1571, Dec. 3.Conferred not above four times at Skinner's House in Westminster with Sir Henry Percy, who told him if the Scottish Queen were delivered to him he could get her conveyed into Scotland either over the Cheviots or by boat through the Humber, and that his servants Witherington and Holland were fit men to do it, as also was Slingsby. Hugh Owen brought examinate twice in Lent last to the Bishop of Ross, who said he would write to the Queen of Scots whether she would deliver herself out of Shrewsbury's keeping. Has not bought any daggers or weapons within the last two years, but has a case of dagger bought two years ago last Lent at the musters of the pensioners. Never agreed to go with the Queen of Scots if she was gotten away. Confesses to expressing a desire that the Duke should marry with her.
3 pp.
1739. Interrogatories and Examination of Sir Thos. Stanley.
1571, Dec. 3.He was first made privy to the device (for carrying Mary away) by Sir Thos. Gerard, a year ago last August, and the only persons he conferred with besides thereon were John Haull, Fras. Rolston and his brother, Sir Edwd. Stanley. Rolston brought him the cipher from Mary. That written to her was a signification of the conference aforesaid, with a declaration that the 300 horses required could not be had without making a great number privy; he subscribed it with the letter A, and Gerard also subscribed it in cipher. To this Mary answered thanking them for their good wills, &c, that she would deliberate thereupon and further advertise them. Powell moved him last Easter to speak with the Bishop of Ross, saying he might do a famous act if he could help convey Mary away into Scotland, but he refused, saying that since his finger was lately in the fire he would keep it out. He only consented because he took her to be next in succession, and hoped, if it were her chance to come to that state after the Queen to receive thanks in that behalf.
6 pp.
1740. Examination of Sir Thomas Gerard.
1571, Dec. 3.The cipher letter sent by him and Sir Thos. Stanley to Mary was to the effect that they were willing and ready to help convey her away with such number of horses as they had, but that they could not find more. Afterwards he sent a letter by a priest of Rolston's offering to convey her disguised, a device she utterly disliked. He consented to the carrying her away on account of the debt he owed in England, thinking thus to pass out of the kingdom with her into Scotland.—Tower of London, 3 December 1571.
1 p.
1741. Interrogatories and Examination of Sir Henry Percy, taken before Sir Ralph Sadler.
1571, Dec. 3.Powell told him he had heard from Hall of a device that Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir Thomas Gerard, and others were about for taking the Scottish Queen away, and asked him to be a dealer in it, which examinate refused. Confesses that he spake with the Bishop of Ross whom he asked to be a mean to the Scottish Queen that if she should regain her liberty she would intercede with the Queen's Majesty for his brother. The Bishop required him to do his mistress such service as he could, and said he [Percy] was thought the most able to help to convey her away. Denies all talk with Carr touching the Scottish Queen. Pressed no men to the taking of her away, though in talk with Powell said there were some of his brother's men who were fit for that purpose, &c.
pp.
1742. The Queen to Lord Strange.
1571, Dec. 6.Learns from his letters to his wife how well disposed he is, and that the cause of his absence from Court is his attendance upon his father in his sickness, and regard for the good order of the country during its continuance. Knowing his earnest goodwill to her service, is sorry not to have found the like in his brethren, which cannot but be displeasant to his good father “whom we have givat cause to lave and esteem for his approved fidelity to us in these times.” He is not to repair to Court save as it may stand with his father's liking, but the Queen has been earnest with his wife to move him to send up his eldest son to be fashioned in good manners, &c. Trusts he will send him up “to be here this Christmas.”
Cecil's minute. 1 p. [Murdin, p. 184. In extenso.]
1743. S. K. to Lord Burghley.
1571, Dec. 9.The great triumphs of weddings toward, and all the circumstances thereof, do much occupy with fear the minds of the honestest sort that love you best, and breed a great ill foreboding. These be the reasons. Some of the nobility are in calamity, being entangled with treason; her Majesty contnueth in danger till traitors have their due, and her highness be delivered of peril. It is construed abroad, that if these triumphs go before the due provision for her highness's safety, it is a plain neglecting of her danger. On the other side, this pomp will be expounded an insulting upon the other's misery. But chiefly this thing grieveth, that such triumphs have been the most usual dangers of princes. These fears may be vain, but how many such joys, even in most timely seasons, have sorrowfully ended; much more, therefore, to be carefully looked unto in this time, specially if it may touch any matter of yours, whom all men envy and hate that are weary of our good Queen. Thus have I presumed simply to disclose to your Lordship the opinions abroad, which otherwise perhaps you hear not.—Undated.
P.S.—The rumours abroad are marvellous, and all to the advantage of the other side, and the same daily grow, and her true friends daily appalled by fear of remissness.
Endorsed by Burghley;—“9 Dec. 1571.—D. Wilson from Norton.”
½ p.
1744. The Bishop of Ross to “H.” [Earl of Westmoreland (see No. 1687).]
1571, Dec. 11.The Queen of Scots hath been sore vexed with pain of her side, which engendereth continual vomits. The cause thereof as considered by the doctors, is only suffocacio matricis, quia desinit esse mater, which they affirm to be a common disease to virgins and young widows. She fears that her sickness shall cause the Duke of Norfolk displeasure, and therefore hath bidden him to write to the Duke her most hearty and loving commendations. The Duke's letter, token, and credit, sent with him, was her only comfort; she regarded little the Queen of England's letter, for it was no better worth, as may be seen by the double of it.—Sheffield, December 11.
Copy. 1 p. [Murdin, p. 165. In extenso.]
1745. Sir Thos. Gresham to the Lord Keeper [Bacon], and Lords Leicester and Burghley.
1571, Dec. 14.Having in November 1569, by the Queen's command, taken up 4,000l and delivered it to Viscount Bindon to be repaid 30 November 1570, and for payment thereof taken assurance of the manors of Buckland and Marneham, county Dorset, from Lord Leicester, Viscount Bindon, and Mr. John Dudley, and the said sum not being paid, he has to make his account to the Queen, and cannot answer that which he owes Her Majesty. Begs them to move the Queen to take the said manors of him in satisfaction of 4,000l. of his account.—London, 14 Dec. 1571.
¾ p.
1746. Sir Thos. Gresham to Lord Burghlet.
1571, Dec. 14.Encloses a letter to him, and the Lord Keeper, and the Earl of Leicester touching land laid in pawn to him by Lord Thos. Howard, wherein he desires Burghley to be good to him, for at this time he cannot satisfy the Queen otherwise.—London, 14 Dec. 1571.
½ p.
1747. The Queen to the Duke of Alva.
1571, Dec. 15.Needs not repeat how long she has misliked Don Guerau Despes [the Spanish Ambassador], and knows not why this unmeet and ungrateful person is not revoked. As she finds that he has increased his practices to disturb the State, and stir up rebellion, can no more endure him to continue, than a person that would secretly seek to inflame the realm with firebrands, and therefore has given him order to depart, without entering into any particular debate, whereunto he is naturally given.
Minute in Burghley's hand, endorsed;—15 Dec. 1571.
2 pp. [Murdin, p. 185. In extenso. See also State Papers, Foreign, 1569–71, No. 2173.]
1748. Queries by Lord Burghley.
[1571, Dec]To know truly who shall be the six hostages; whether the spoil and the prisoners shall not be given to them that shall win the town and castle by assault, &c.; whether Northumberland and the other rebels shall not be delivered at Berwick with the hostages, &c.
[On the other side of the page is a minute by Cecil, from the Queen to certain Lords, requiring them to repair to the Queen at Westminster by 7 Jan. 1571, at which time her further pleasure shall be made known. ½ p.]
¾ p.
1749. The Queen to certain Gentlemen in Northumberland.
1571Having heard from Sir John Foster, Warden of the Marches towards Scotland, of the good and faithful service done by them during the late rebellion in the north, a report confirmed by the Earl of Sussex, Lieutenant of the north parts, and by Lord Hunsdon, Governor of Berwick, thanks them hereby for their service, and requires them to continue in the like fidelity.
Endorsed;—. . . . 1571.
Draft by Lord Burghley. 1 p.
1750. Charges against the Bishop of Ross.
[1571].First, his sending letters to the rebels in Flanders, as to the Countess of Northumberland; and to persons living in contempt of the Queen's Majesty, as to Sir Francis Englefield.
Secondly, in sending books to be printed beyond seas: some touching the title of this Crown dangerously, others, uttering untruth concerning the hearing of the Queen of Scots' cause.
Thirdly, his sending letters by Ridolfi. against the Queen's Majesty, and tending to stir up a rebellion; untruly alleging that the one was sent to the Queen of Scots, the other to the Spanish Ambassador.—Undated.
In Burghley's hand and endorsed:—“B. of Ross, Charles Bally.”
1 p.
1751. Sir Henry Neville and the Duke of Norfolk.
[1571].“Messages delivered by Sir Henry Neville, knt., by word of mouth unto me [Duke of Norfolk], to be answered to your Majesty.”
1. That your Majesty hath cause to conceive that I was privy to this rebellion by letters intercepted of the Earl of Westmorland and Markenfield, wherein they say my advice was to wait until the spring.
2. To know of me what danger I knew might ensue by the Queen of Scots' marriage to your Majesty's person or realm, and what was the peril.
3. Whether that upon the Queen of Scots' answer to the Lords, wherein I was not specially named, I should say unto them that I would find the means she would name myself; and that the Queen of Scots should say, that I sent her word of your Majesty's good contentation thereunto.
4. That the Queen of Scots hath utterly renounced to marry with me, and to marry with any other that it should please your Majesty.
5. That your Majesty thought me forgetful of my duty, seeing the Queen of Scots had done that which I (being your Highness's subject and servant) had not done in all this time of my trouble.—Undated.
1 p.
1752. Interrogatories for Hersey Lasselles.
[1571].What was the cause you sought to obtain a token from the Scots' Queen to the Duke of Norfolk, and how did you know that the said Queen favoured and loved the said Duke, or that the Duke loved her? Did you complain to your brother Brian for money? Where and when did you obtain the ring for your brother? Where and when did your brother re-deliver the ring to you? When and for what cause were you put from the Earl of Sh[rewsbury's] service? For what occasion did you again repair to the house or houses of the said Earl?—Undated.
1 p.
1753. — to —.
[1571].Where you do stand bounden unto us for the payment of certain great sums of money as you do well know: we let you “wete” that we are contented that you shall have liberty to sell 600l. of any of your lands, to the intent that the sums of money thereof coming may be paid unto us in part satisfaction of our said debt; and upon payment of such sums of money to us, the lands so by you to be sold shall be for ever discharged thereof against us.—Undated.
Endorsed by Burghley :—For the Lord Treasurer.
Draft. Unsigned. 1¼ pp.
1754. Burghley's Notes on the State of Lancashire and Cheshire.
[1571].“Seditious rumours scattered round about the country.—Common Prayer not continued in my Lord's house as it was.—The churches in the country near my Lord's house, either not served with curates, or none suffered to preach in them.—One Y. conveyed my Lord Morley over the seas.—Oaths taken by many that they will not come to the churches—John Wesseley, a carrier about of bulls in the country—John Ormeston, a common railer against preachers.—Brown, a conniver, kept in the Earl's house.—Thomas Wolfall, seaman, maintained there.—Baker, parson of Winwick, that was provost of King's College, in Cambridge.—One Bradock lieth at a house of the Earl of Derby, called Bidstone, in Cheshire, without coming to any church.—Lady Margaret hath of late given certain crosses of silver to the gentlewomen of the country to hang at their necks as relics.—One Kent, a minstrel, or sucklike, being servant to the Earl, of late railed against the Friars of the city for that they would not permit ringing on All Souls' Day, and threatened that this year was theirs, but the next should not, &c.—Daintry, Sir Thomas Stanley's servant, a seditious person wandering abroad, blind born, an astronomer, wandering up and down.—Francis Barnes, a “poster.”—One Maxfeld.—Two Armigills.—Sir John Astbrook now with Mr. Ro. Dimmock.—Hall.”
Then follows a list of names of persons, chiefly in Lancashire, Derbyshire, and Cheshire, “devoted to the Earl of D[erby],” interspersed with notes such as the following:—
Nota.—One Daintry, a seaman, entertained with Sir Th. Stanley all clad in yellow.—Maxfeld, of Staffordshire, steward to the Lady Mordaunt, a messenger used betwixt Lord Mordaunt and Lord Morley.—The Earl hath borrowed of his tenants six or seven years' rents.—One Clapham, of Staffordshire, that was sent for by my Lord Strange was afterward sent away; he taught the Lord Strange's son to dance.—Richard Ratcliff that married young Mollyneux's wife that was Mr. Carrell's daughter.—Inquire for the bonds taken by the Bishop of gentlemen in Lancashire.—Churchyard had a patent granted to him by the Earl of Derby.
Endorsed by Burghley:—“Lancashire Contr. Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir Edward Stanley, Sir Thomas Gerrard.”
pp.
1755. Henry de la Tower to [Lord Burghley].
[1571].Having occasion to speak with one at St. Bartholomew's and finding him at his house, he walked with Mr. Bollen to Smithfield Bars. And there, being at the stall of one Davison, the Duke's glazier, they were requested to come into his shop. Davison then said that one Bowles who belonged to the Duke had ten marvellous fair black corslets of proof, which were proved with the pistolett. Further, that they were before he came into trouble in the house of one Hall in Fleet Street, where he chose out one for his own wearing, and did very curiously search all the parts thereof, and demanded of Hall whether he thought it a good armour and sufficient to hold out the shot of a pistolett.—Undated.
1 p.
1756. T. Lichfield's Commission.
[1571].“A brief declaration of such unjust payments and allowancesas Thomas Lichfield hath found by virtue of his commission.” Among the particulars are:—Alexander Bassano, a musician, having an annuity of 50l., was allowed for 15 years after his death, amounting to 750l.; Sir Robert Laybourne, clerk, for not compounding for his First Fruits, —82l.; Henry Longe, for a yearly rent of 6l. 12s. per annum, concealed for 30 years ended at Michaelmas, 12 Eliz., 198l.—Undated.
pp.
1757. Interrogatories for the [Duke of Norfolk].
[1571].Whether he ever sent to the Earl of Westmorland to desire his consent to the marriage between him and the Queen of Scots? Whether he fixed a day for the marriage, or sent to the Earl to be ready and to assist him with armour and weapons? How many other noblemen and gentlemen did he appoint to assist him for the said marriage, and who were they? What was the intent to have so many at the marriage with armour and weapons? Did he mean to tarry in England or else to go to Scotland after the marriage? Did he mean to take the Queen of Scots by force or with the consent of her keepers? Did he know of any proclamation devised to be set forth by the rebels in the North?
(Higford, 28 Sept. and 1 Oct.) Whether he do know Charles and Cuthbert? Whether he did command Higford to decipher a letter, beginning, “By the despatch, &c,” and ending “the vij. of Febr. &c,” and what he did with it?
(Upon the B[ishop's] examination, 12 Sept.) How he came by any of the Queen of Scots' money? How the same hath been defrayed, and to whom?
(Higford, 17 Sept.) How often hath he written to Lygons since his first imprisonment? Why did Lygons fly? Did he advise Lygons to remove from Paris?
(Barker, 18 Sept. and 22 Sept.) How often Ridolphi hath been with the Duke since his imprisonment? What conference was there between them touching the delivery of the Scots' Queen, or for anything to be done for her beyond the seas? What papers Ridolphi delivered with the names of noblemen and gentlemen? Were figures thereon set. for noblemen's names? Whether the Duke was moved to write to the Duke D'Alva, and for what cause? Had he any talk with Ridolphi of any haven or landing-place? Whether Ridolphi declared to him that he would go to D'Alva, the King of Spain, and the Pope, for aid for the Scots' Queen? Whether the Duke did appoint Barker to have conference with the Bishop of Ross and Ridolphi?
(Barker, 26 Sept.) Whether the Duke heard of a letter sent from Ridolphi to the Bishop of Ross by aid of Monsieur? Whether the Duke received any letter directed to him from the Pope beginning—“Dilecte fili, &c.” or of such like effect? Whether the Duke was made privy to any bull or writing from Rome? What letters or messages he had received from or sent to Lord Cobham? Who was meant in a cipher written by the Bishop of Ross to him by these letters—H. and O.? Who made the ciphers in three places of his Bible? How he can decipher the same? To whom the letters of the Earl of Westmorland and of Ridolphi taken by Thomas Cob[ham] were directed?—Undated.
Headed:—“Interrogatories to be ministered to the D. (Framed upon the letter of R. Constable of the 29th of January 1569).”
Draft. 7¼ pp.
1758. Interrogatories.
[1571].What letters Borthwick carried from the Duke to the Queen of Scots when she was at Wingfield? What did the Bishop of Ross report from the Duke of Alva, and what advice did the Duke give the Scots' Queen? (It was at the time the physicians were first with her.) When began the use of Goodyear to carry letters for the Scots' Queen? (In May he did service, anno 1570.) When did the Duke send a diamond to the Queen of Scots by Lord Boyd? In December 1570, a letter from the Bishop of Ross to H., whom he calleth Low. When was it that the Queen of Scots moved the Duke to escape, and not care for the loss of his lands? A letter from the Bishop to O., a little after the Bishop was charged to have spoken with the Earl of Southampton. A letter sent from Chatsworth to the Duke from the Bishop of Ross by Goodyear's boy. Who was termed the Solicitor in the Scottish Queen's letters for your cause?—[This last interrogatory is in a different hand.] Undated.
In Burghley's hand. ¾ p.
1759. Information of Gabriel Barlandgare.
[1571].As to an Italian and free denizen who fled from England in 1571 with two other Italians. Witnesses can prove him a fugitive and a rebel to the State, and yet his yearly rents in England are reserved to his use.—Undated.
1 p.
1760. Memoranda touching Charles Bailly.
[1571].That the said Charles had been made a prisoner at London for having been concerned with others in a plot against the Queen, or was suspected thereof. To ascertain whether he was still alive, in prison or elsewhere. In the event of his being found to ask him where he deposited certain accoutrements and rings delivered into his keeping by “N.” In case the things should be in his power that he should restore them, or write letters for their restoration without expressing the name of the said N., which for good reasons it is not wished to divulge at present.—Undated.
Endorsed by Burghley:—“Charles Bailly.”
French. 1 p.
1761. Interrogatories lastly administered to Brian Lascelles. [From indorsement.]
[1571].How many times within two years last passed he had been with the Earl of Shrewsbury? On what business? How he did first understand the Scottish Queen had any favour or credit in his brother Hersey Lascelles? Whether did he, after the receipt of the ring at the hands of Sir Nicholas Strangwich before he brought it to him from the scottish Queen, return again to Tutbury or Chatsworth with the same ring, or whether did he re-deliver the same ring to his brother at any of the said places?—Undated.
½ p.
1762. “To examine the L[ord] Lumley.” [See No. 1644 above.]
[1571].What letters he hath received from the Duke of Norfolk during his imprisonment, first in the house at Poule Wentworth's, after in the Tower, and since at Howard House? What messages were sent to him from the Queen of Scots? What intelligence had he with the Bishop of Ross and the Earl of Southampton concerning the matter wherewith they two were charged for their practice of speech in Lambeth Marsh? What was the cause of Mr. Knotsforth's last coming up? When did he speak with Cuthbert, and what conference had he with Ridolphi?—Undated.
In Burghley's hand. 1 p.
1763. The Channel Islands.
[157l].(1.) Minute from the Queen, directing the supply of certain artillery, implements, &c. to the Captain of the Isle of Guernsey.
Draft. ½ p.
(2.) A similar Minute to the Bailiff and Jurats of Guernsey, directing that from thenceforth such customs as strangers do, or ought to, pay, be levied on all wares or merchandize brought to the Isle in foreign vessels.
Draft. ½ p.
(3.) Minute to the Sheriffs (?) of Hampshire, Dorset, and Wiltshire, stating that a specified number of men have been ordered to be levied in these counties for the defence of the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and directing them to choose out the same under good officers, and to have them in readiness to be transported to the said Isles, when order to that effect is received.
Endorsed:—July 1571.
Draft. ¾ p.
(4.) Commencement of the draft of a Minute, touching the conveyance by indirect means of certain Crown lands in Guernsey to sundry persons there, in fee farm.
¼ p.

Footnotes

1 The oath was taken by Shrewsbury 12 Dec. 1571, v. State Papers (Dom.) Eliz. Vol. LXXXIII., No. 33.